Editor’s note: the length restriction on forum letters has been waived.
Act now and create a University policy on hate crimes
On Nov. 14, 2007 — almost a year ago to the day — the Student Senate passed R 62, the The Racism and Hatred Incident Condemnation Act in response to the noose found in the Sullivan Shops. Leading up to the passing of that bill, myself and three other students (only one of which was a leader of a black organization on campus) drafted a letter to Chancellor James Oblinger calling for a stronger condemnation and hosted a meeting attended by Oblinger, Tom Stafford, Jose Picart, and Tom Younce among others.
In that meeting students questioned the administration on why a University hate crime policy was not on the books and what steps were being taken to develop one. Additionally, Jose Picart assured those present at his office was moving full steam ahead to develop and implement diversity training for incoming students with the purpose of exposing the issues of prejudice and ignorance before they erupt into cowardly acts as was observed in the Free Expression Tunnel following the election of Barack Obama. Immediately, the Senate passed the aforementioned Resolution with specific language: “the University should adopt a hate crimes policy….”
Two weeks later the Senate passed R 67, Hate Crime Committee Act, laying out the establishment for a committee to tackle the issue head on. That resolution likewise gave specific language on the makeup of the committee and a timeline for producing a hate crimes policy.
One year later we find history repeating itself. The events following the noose incident, as shrouded in mystery as it was, no fingerprints given it was made from a porous material, no motive, no witness, no suspects, should have led the university to draft and implement a hate speech/crime policy as demanded by a number of student leaders. Instead, the administration is as ambivalent as ever. How many more embarrassing events must N.C. State experience before it wakes up and takes proactive instead of reactive measures?
Student Government gets no free ride on this one either. Had the aforementioned resolutions received the follow-up they deserved, a plan could have been in place to deal with the current issue decisively.
With television cameras rolling, last week’s performance from the senate voting to go home early and forego a vote or debate on the current hate speech legislation, R 36 was disappointing and shameful. Reports of students participating in physical confrontations during and after the meeting clearly show that the Senate has run amuck. This is a defining moment for the Senate. The coming meeting will determine whether or not the body is in fact as spineless as was observed last Wednesday.
At the end of the day, it’s not simply an issue of black and white. The whole campus looks bad — from the administration all the way down to the student body. Chancellor Oblinger and Jose Picart have on their hands a campus community that is much too tolerant of random acts of hate, and neither gentleman has the gumption to address and reverse an inimical campus culture. N.C. State must adopt a hate crime policy. Resolution 36 must include the demand for a committee and time table for the adoption of a hate crime/speech policy concurrent with those listed in R 62 & 67 from last senate session. The time is now — we cannot wait.
Robert Waldrup
alumnus, class of 2007
Hate speech can lead to real tragedy
Since many of this paper’s readers are likening the four students to misguided youth and “adolescents,” I challenge this campus to remember that we have examples of where this type of “adolescent” hate language can lead. Similar language was used by Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold. They later went on to commit the horrific Columbine High shooting which left 12 dead and 23 wounded. Their targets were athletes, minorities and “popular kids.”
Their actions were symptomatic of an all-too-common phenomenon — the ability to objectify an individual or group and advocate for violence against that person(s). This has been the root of the world’s worst atrocities (the Holocaust, Darfur genocide and the Bosnian genocide). Read about or ask anyone who experienced these atrocities and they will tell you that it began with words and sentiments that went unchallenged.
I do not mean to invoke these most terrifying incidents lightly without consideration of the impact of my language. I am well aware of the feelings associated with such imagery. The four students were well aware too. They knew full well the potential impact of their language.
Please understand that the fear African-American students have is that there are others on campus who condone this language and the actions it advocates. If you listen, there is a palpable fear in the voices of these students as they talk about the incident. Their fear is that by not acting, the University community is tacitly approving the words and the actions.
Donnie Charleston
doctoral student, sociology
