ON THURSDAY, the University Judiciary Committee voted on a proposal to submit a referendum to the student body creating harsher sanctions for violations of the Standards of Conduct "motivated by the age, color, disability, national or ethnic origin, political affiliation, race, religion, sex (including pregnancy), sexual orientation or veteran status of the victim." This proposal, though well-intentioned, is more dangerous than it is useful because it poses a threat to individual liberties and has little chance for success in decreasing such incidents.
The most obvious difficulty with the idea is that it is difficult to ascertain the true motives behind a hate incident. It is a vital component of American justice that the prosecution must prove the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and it is unlikely that such motives could ever be proven to a satisfactory extent in the case of hate-motivated violations at the University. The new proposal, therefore, will either change nothing or will lead to questionable decisions on sanctions.
There is also a deeper, more philosophical danger in the new language of the resolution: the idea that increased sanctions for hate incidents punishes not only actions, but thoughts as well. The violation would not be an act but an idea. This way of thinking is reminiscent of George Orwell's "thoughtcrime," and reeks of totalitarianism. It implies that a certain idea or political philosophy is somehow against the rules. No matter how appalling and obviously wrong a viewpoint might be, a free society cannot declare a way of thinking to be criminal.
This does not imply that hateful ideas should go unchallenged. Hateful philosophies must be condemned by all rational members of a society, but even hateful opinions must be tolerated in a legal system that endorses freedom of expression. Rather than John T. Casteen's maxim, "I will not tolerate intolerance," we should look to Mr. Jefferson's own confident claim that "errors of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it."
Supporters of the resolution may argue that the more malicious a crime's motives, the stronger sanction it deserves. It is difficult to say, however, whether the motivation behind an act makes it more heinous. The victim ofdoes not feel any better if the crime was not hate-motivated.
Pavan Gupta, an Engineering student and the UJC judge involved with the resolution, argues that "we must stand strong in our belief that diversity encourages new opinions and better learning at our University." This point is valid, but the ability of the new proposal to encourage the University to embrace diversity is questionable. Stricter sanctions are not likely even to reduce the number of hate incidents. Despite all of the hate-crime legislation passed on the federal level in the last decade, the FBI reports that such incidents decreased nationwide by less than 300, or four percent, between 1995 and 2004. Given that statistic, it is illogical to expect harsher punishments to be effective at the University.
Even if the proposed change could decrease the number of hate-motivated violations, these incidents are only a small part of the diversity problem facing the University. According to UJC Chair Tim Ormsby, there has been only one case in the last four years that could be construed as such an incident, and even in that case, the victim insisted the violation was not hate-motivated. Those who believe that the University is not a place where diversity can thrive do not cite a particularly high incidence of hate-motivated violations; rather, they point to an atmosphere of segregation and homogeneity, as well as hate incidents that are not violations of the Standards of Conduct. If the University wishes to change its image, these issues should be its focus.
It should be noted that the proposal only requires that UJC judges take into account factors that they were already free to consider. According to Gupta, "Judges take into account what they would like to take into account. They come to arbitrary decisions on those ideas." This system means that the judges have always been free to impose harsher sanctions on convicted students based on the nuances of the individual cases. In fact, the proposal leaves the power to decide if the violation is hate-motivated in the hands of the judges. If the goal of the proposal is to ensure a more just sanction for a more heinous incident, it is unnecessary. The judges themselves currently base their sanctions on the seriousness of the violation, and even the current system would impose a stronger sanction for hate-motivated crimes.
The proposal has a small chance of succeeding in terms of promoting diversity and tolerance. Rather than proceeding with a plan that criminalizes a point of view, the University should look for a more affirming, positive way of improving the University's reputation for tolerance.
Daniel Colbert is a Cavalier Daily Viewpoint writer.
Read More
GARVIE: U.Va. Health is rapidly falling behind on its responsibility to patients
By Adeline Garvie | YesterdayWhile gender-affirming care is one of the biggest ways U.Va. Health is falling short, it is not the only one.
Letters to the Editor: The resignation of University President Jim Ryan
2 days agoFollowing this resignation, The Cavalier Daily has received letters from the University community which provide various perspectives on what this moment means to them and to the University’s future.
A statement by 40 Jewish faculty and staff on antisemitism and DEI at U.Va.
By Jewish Faculty & Staff at U.Va. | 3 days agoAs scholars and teachers, we know that dissent and debate strengthen our intellectual commitments and moral judgments rather than threaten them. We reject any attempt to deny these basic truths.
