A lot of people who commit hate crimes do express specific reasons why they did it. Many of the attacks on Asians the perpetrators have said it was because of COVID-19.
Would that also apply to that no one alive was a member of the Confederacy so then taking down Confederate statues or changing the names of places named after Confederate generals isn't an attack on anyone alive today's culture?
Race is a protected class. Protected class is a legal term. It is one of several enumerated categories into which people are sorted. They were a protected class because they were attacked due to their race. If they attacked kids for a reason that was not covered, like being nerds, having rich parents, or liking blonde girls, the penalties would be different. I don't think that fits within the letter or the spirit of the equal protection clause. Everyone should be treated the same under the law. Someone who owned the statue would be injured if you stole or damaged the statue. Maligning the Confederacy is protected speech. Certainly if someone attacked a person from Boston as revenge for what happened in the 1800s and destroying the Confederacy, that would be a stupid thing to do, it would be a dumb person that did it, they were obviously not taking revenge as none of the Union soldiers are alive today nor is anyone that lived in and supported the Confederacy, etc.
pretty much a red herring. The point in this case isn't that the kids gave a "reason" for their actions, the point is the (admittedly) speculative origin of the reason that they gave. I don't think one could make any kind of plausible case whatsoever that attacks on Asians by perpetrators who "have said it was because of COVID-19" could have any possible link, genesis, or connection to Critical Race Theory. Bullying white students as "revenge for slavery," on the other hand, could conceivably be linked to CRT values being conveyed in education. Again, speculation, admittedly.
So do you think they should leave the statues? What about the street names? Just curious on your view.
p*rn hug. SMH. Two grown women or two grown men hugging isn't p*rn. Do these same people demand that the pedophiles, and adulterers in the GOP be removed from office?
That's a slightly different question if factors like race should matter in criminal penalties but this case was one where there was equality under the law. It wasn't that because the victims were white and the perpetrators black that hate crime laws weren't applied. The law was applied equally that this was a racially motivated attack regardless of the race of the parties involved.
You yourself said they gave a reason for their attack. I pointed out how many perpetrators of hate crimes give a reason for their attacks. And yes those attacks on Asians over COVID were racially motivated as Asian Americans have nothing to do with the origins of COVID. They were targeted because of their race.
I brought that up because Stupidmoniker stated that no one alive has owned a slave so it is ridiculous to attack a white person as revenge of slavery. I agree but followed up with a related tangent that no one alive was a member of the Confederacy yet we've frequently heard arguments that taking down Confederate statues is an attack on some people's culture. It sounds like he would agree that such things are better left to history. My own view is that Confederate statues shouldn't be destroyed but they belong in museums and not on public display on government ground. I have no problem with changing street names. I don't think it is the most pressing issue that we have though. The Confederacy is long dead and gone. None alive nor even anyone's grandparents was part of the Confederacy. It should be relegated to history rather than being celebrated.
Not sure if posted. IN with a supermajority of Republicans killed two bills during the legislative session that just ended. Book banning and CRT. HB 1134: Indiana Senate kills CRT-inspired legislation (indystar.com) The Indiana Senate killed controversial House Bill 1134, which would have banned several "divisive concepts" and given more power over curriculum and classroom activities to parents, Monday night after several hours of closed-door discussions in the Republican caucus. Even though Republicans have a supermajority in the General Assembly, Senate President Pro Tempore Rodric Bray, R-Martinsville, said he didn't have the votes to support the bill that was inspired by nearly a year of debate about "critical race theory" in the state's public schools. The bill, which would have limited what teachers could say in the classroom about race, sex and religion had been staunchly opposed by educators, school leaders, civil rights groups, Black community organizations and leaders in the faith community. The bill was inspired by the opposition nationwide of primarily white, suburban parents to what was called "critical race theory" but was more often about social emotional learning and diversity, equity and inclusion work. Those who opposed the bill said it was a solution to a problem that doesn't exist in Indiana and risked driving teachers — a critical profession already in short supply — out of the field. "Over the past several weeks, ISTA members and public education advocates have shared their stories and voiced their concerns about stifling teachers’ ability to teach and students' ability to receive an honest education," said ISTA President Keith Gambill. "Hoosier parents and educators all want our students to succeed, and we’ll continue to be partners in standing up for what’s right for their future." A similar bill was killed by the Senate earlier this session after Sen. Scott Baldwin, R-Noblesville, became the focus of national outrage after saying Senate Bill 167 would require teachers to be neutral in their teaching on all topics, including Nazism, Marxism and fascism. He later walked back the comments. Indiana lawmakers kill book-banning bill regarding 'harmful material' (indystar.com) In the final hours of the legislative session, lawmakers revived and then promptly killed a bill that would have criminalized teachers and librarians who exposed kids to books and other materials that some may find obscene. Critics of the bill say it's unnecessary — schools already have processes in place to deal with book challenges — and it could lead to censorship and book banning. The proposal has been championed by conservative, right-wing groups who say they’re concerned about their children being exposed to sexually-explicit and age-inappropriate material at school. Some parents have been raising concerns about the material their children have access to at schools — particularly books with sexually explicit scenes or centered on LGBTQ experiences — for more than a year. The Indiana bill would have stripped protections for school and public library employees from prosecution under the state’s law that prohibits the dissemination of harmful to minors, which is defined as matter that: describes or represents, in any form, nudity, sexual conduct, sexual excitement, or sado-masochistic abuse; considered as a whole, it appeals to the prurient interest in sex of minors; it is patently offensive to prevailing standards in the adult community as a whole with respect to what is suitable matter for or performance before minors; and considered as a whole, it lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors. Violating the law is a Level 6 Felony. Schools and libraries are among the entities with an automatic defense.
Additional charges/potential punishments were attached based on the race of the parties. That is not equal protection. It shouldn't matter if the motive is hatred of a protected class or non-protected class. Just saying there is equality under the law doesn't make it so. I have demonstrated exactly how the law is not equally applied. By their very nature, hate crime laws relying on protected class definitions cannot be equally applied.
You seem fixated on the fact that race is considered as an aggravating factor. I'm pointing out that while race is this case shows it isn't limited to any particular race. All races no matter who is the perpetrator or the victim hate crime laws can apply. In other words the races were treated equally in this case. Every race is a protected class under this application of the law.
As it is the entire point I am making, of course I "seem fixated" on it. I never claimed otherwise. It is just totally non-responsive to my point. Yes, but other classes are not protected classes. That is the point. I never said it was racially discriminatory, I said treated protected classes (like race) differently than unprotected classes (like hair color) means the law considering the protected classes does not provide equal protection under the law. If you are beat up because you are a man, the perpetrator should not get a more severe penalty than if you are beat up because you are a Rockets fan. They attacked you out of their own personal animus and caused you the same amount of damage, but one person is more protected by the law than the other.
The purpose of a hate crime charge is because intent matters. It's why we have different homicide charges because a manslaughter charge is different than intentionally murdering someone with a planned out course of action. Society might see someone more dangerous to the general public if they chose to attack someone because of their race because that means that person is a danger to anyone of that class. If someone assulted someone over a personal dispute, that person isn't as much if a harm to the general public as much as someone who specifically targets a group of people.
I disagree. Intent is already factored into criminal law. The purpose of a hate crime charge is to punish people more because they are hurting a protected class. It was passed with the intent to give more punishments to people attacking black people, gay people, and women, but they couldn't say that because it would not pass constitutional scrutiny by any court. This has nothing to do with hate crime charges. We punish murder differently than manslaughter because manslaughter allows for imperfect defenses. Someone would be just as much of a danger to the public if they attacked people who are homeless (to take something from today's headlines). They are a danger to anyone of that non-protected class. What hate crime laws do is provide increased penalties for attacking some classes, but not other classes. That is my issue with them.
https://leiterreports.typepad.com/b...ersity-in-favor-of-becoming-an-anti-raci.html The backlash to U Mass/Boston's proposal to cease being a university in favor of becoming an "anti-racist" institution We noted this embarrassment previously (here and here), and now CHE has an article: An early draft of the statement, which would commit the university to becoming “an anti-racist and health-promoting institution that honors and uplifts the cultural wealth of our students,” has drawn sharp criticism both on and off campus, even as some applaud the effort. As of March 11, some 75 faculty members at the university had signed an open letter of opposition written by some colleagues from the College of Science and Mathematics, which called the draft statement “deeply flawed in content, direction, and representation.” The letter argues that “the fundamental role of the public university can neither be political nor ideological activism.” A growing number of supporters from other colleges have also signed the letter of opposition online. A Boston Globe columncharacterizing the draft as reeking of “woke indoctrination,” has added fuel to the conflict. The controversy comes at a time when many colleges are grappling with critical questions about race, taking steps such as adding diversity and anti-bias training, reviewing classes and curricula with an eye toward identifying and reducing racial bias, and declaring that their institutions will strive to become anti-racist. Those steps have highlighted the inherent tensions that some see between committing to anti-racism and preserving academic freedom or intellectual diversity. Adán Colón-Carmona , a biology professor who co-chaired the committee working on the mission and vision statement, said the university takes pride in being the most ethnically diverse public university in New England. According to the university, 59 percent of undergraduates are first-generation college students, and 62 percent identify as members of a minority group. Colón-Carmona said that to be able to say that the university strives to become anti-racist “makes a statement to students that … you’re welcome here and we’re going to work to get better at this and we value you.” But critics say that the draft — which has not yet been presented to university leaders — goes too far. “We want to further all the important goals and directions of our society but through what we are,” said a faculty member who signed the opposition letter. “We are a teaching and research institution, and through that, we try to advance all those causes.” He spoke on the condition of anonymity, saying that he feared potential repercussions. Several other faculty members who signed the letter declined to comment. This is not a hard issue, and reveals something very worrisome about U Mass/Boston. Universities exist to educate students in the various scholarly disciplines that have expanded our knowledge of history, language, individual psychology, living organisms, physical and chemical phenomena, and so on. Many of them aspire also to contribute to that knowledge. We can all thank Wilhelm von Humboldt (1767-1835) for coming up with the theory of why universities should exist. It, of course, helped that Germany was one of the two premier capitalist powers in the world at the time, but that means they had the resources to establish the modern idea of a university. Johns Hopkins, Harvard, Chicago quickly adopted that ideal during the 19th-century, and embrace them to the present. Hospitals contribute to the health of their patients. Universities contribute to the knowledge of their students through teaching and to the knowledge of the world through their research. Neither institution has as its purpose anti-racism. Both institutions must comply with laws that prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex or race, as well they should! But that is not why the exist. They exist to promote the missions that justify their existence in the first place. (As an aside, let me suggest that Jordan Peterson and Ibram Kendi should found their own "university," since both are utterly ignorant of what universities are about.) I conclude with a story, that I have probably told before. The late Bill Powers told me this story--he was Dean of the Law School at the University of Texas at Austin, and then President of the University. The "Commission of 125" of the University of Texas convened in the early 2000s, it was made up of academics and alumni, who issued a report about the University's future. The academics thought the mission of the university should be the good of the community and society, and blather like that--the analogue of today's anti-racism blather. It was the alumni, the business leaders and the like, who had to push back and say: no, the goal of the university is to be a great university, great at teaching and research. In fact, the University of Texas at Austin is now an even better university than it was in 2004. It has improved the undergraduate experience and enhanced the status of its graduate programs and faculty. It focused on the goals for a university. If U Mass/Boston is a university, it will reject this ephemeral nonsense, just as UT Austin rejected the idea that its purpose was to serve society. Universities serve society by being excellent in teaching and research--just like hospitals serve society by being excellent at caring for health. This isn't hard. That it's even under discussion is alarming. Posted by Brian Leiter on March 15, 2022 at 07:42 AM
Making the SAT and ACT Optional Is the Soft Bigotry of Low Expectations https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/15/opinion/test-optional-admissions.html excerpt: But I find myself thinking about other things, including how we’ve allowed ourselves to all but give up on the idea that many Black and Latino students, as well as Pacific Islander and Native American students, can compete. When we expect less of people it’s often because we think less of them: In 1974, the linguistic anthropologist Elinor Ochs documented that in rural villages in Madagascar, women were associated more with direct and therefore less refined speech than men. Their culture heavily valued circumlocution — diplomatic, even delicate speech — but it was still considered socially acceptable for women to speak bluntly, sometimes even coarsely, because less was expected of them. I think of this kind of thing in reference to altering standards of evaluation so that Black and Latino students are represented proportionally in various institutions. These days, one is to think of this sort of thing as “equity.” The idea seems to be that until there is something much closer to equality — as in equal access to resources — throughout society, we must force at least the superficial justice of equity in sheer percentages. But too often, the message being communicated to Black and Latino people is that our presence is what matters, not our performance. I am uncomfortable, for example, with the domino-effect elimination of standardized testing requirements in university admissions policies across the country. more at the link
We're talking past each other here. I'm talking about equal application of the law and in this case the law was applied equally. You seem to agree as you never said it was racially discriminatory. That is the point I'm making.
We've given up on black students. Latinos are progreasing. White liberals are comfortable in their low expectations for Blacks from crime to education. Liberalism won't allow them to be honest about causes of problems
