OUR OPINION: Referring hate crime policy to another committee essentially kills this important issue, which universities need to address.
In a video conference Wednesday, vice chancellors and provosts from all 16 UNC system schools discussed recommendations from the commission UNC system president Erskine Bowles formed to discuss policy on hate crime.
The commission recommended a system-wide policy regarding hate crime, personal violence and intimidation, as well as a possible diversity education class for incoming freshmen.
Making a recommendation is wonderful, but it is something anyone could have done — in short, the committee has determined that hate crimes are bad, and the UNC system should do something to educate students about diversity.
Students do not need a committee of vice chancellors and provosts to state the obvious. What students deserve is a concrete policy regarding the UNC system’s stance on hate crimes that leaves implementation, enforcement and diversity education to the individual institution.
The event that sparked the creation of multiple committees on hate crime, campus culture and diversity education occurred six months ago on the day after the presidential elections. Other major issues, particularly regarding economic recession and the resulting system-wide budget cuts, have come into the picture and will no doubt distract administrators from the serious problem of hate crime on campus.
If it takes six months for various committees to tell the Board of Governors that hate crimes are bad and we should do something to prevent them, how long will it take the next committee to come up with a real policy?
This is no solution — it is a blatant attempt to avoid tackling the difficult issue of balancing free speech against hate crime on college campuses by burying it in bureaucracy and subcommittees.
What the UNC system should do is come up with a specific definition of hate crime, personal violence and intimidation on its campuses. This gives all universities in the system the opportunity to alter their policies appropriately.
As for diversity education, each university should be responsible for crafting a program suitable for its students needs. There is no cookie-cutter way to educate students about diversity and hate crimes, as every university attracts a variety of students.
Yet the UNC system has done nothing of the sort, and this must change. Hate crimes and discrimination will not go away simply because people want it to fade away — such attitudes will only go away with decisive, concrete action.
