I have to report on the "cotton ball incident" as it has been called that happened recently on the campus of my alma mater Mizzou. I saw the words "cotton ball incident" in a headline, and to be honest I was befuddled. It turns out 2 Mizzou students decided to spread some cotton balls in front of the Black Culture Center at 2 in the morning. After hearing this I was still befuddled, the connection between cotton and slavery is obvious, but I was still thinking WTF?... is this avant gaurde racism? I thought a little more about it, then it occured to me, why these racist miscreants would do such a thing. They thought it would be amusing to see members of the Black Culture Center pick up the cotton balls in the morning... Ah, it took me a while, to get what these jouvenile racists were up to (and I think that is a good thing).
Okay, lets cut to the aftermath...People on campus are pissed. This has caused quite a hullabaloo as you might imagine. MU's Chancellor and Chief Diversity Officer hosted a town hall meeting for people to discuss the incident, over 300 attended. The 2 students Sean D. Fitzgerald and Zachary E. Tucker were suspended (right on) and will likely be expelled (considering this and the other crimes they were involved in, I would agree they certainly dont belong at Mizzou, nor do they represent our core values... sure expel them, it is harsh to be sure, but I think these kids deserve it). Crime-wise, the boys are being charged with tampering in the second degree (this is the first I have ever heard of tampering in the second degree, but it sounds like it accurately describes what they were doing, so sure, throw the tampering book at them..).. Here is where it gets interesting... they are also being charged with a class D Felony for a hate crime. That is how distributing cotton balls can get you a felony... and the answer to the riddle.
Okay, now lets talk hate crimes. I am not vehemently anti-hate crime legislation. I am kind of ambivalent about it actually (Incidently, I am anti hate-speech legislation, but that is an issue for another day, unless you consider the cotton ball incident free speech), but this incident sheds light on the interesting and at times absurd conundrums one must consider when enforcing punishment for an alleged hate act.
What if these boys left q-tips? Is that a hate crime? They have cotton tips. Its a little more ambigious now isnt it.
What if some guy in the morning saw the cotton balls, realized their intent, and quietly picked them up and threw them away and dismissed the incident. Would it still be a hate crime; there was no victim in this case? Does the level of hurtfulness matter? Or whether a victim chooses to acknowledge that hurtfulness?
What if it was just 5 cotton balls? Would anyone even notice? What is the threshold level of cotton balls needed to constitute a felony? 5, 50, or 500?
What if someone walking with a bag of groceries were to accidentally drop cotton balls on the same spot? Would they be charged with a hate crime, the result may have been the same the next morning, but in this case it was an accident?
What if they left 500 slices of bread vs. 100 cotton balls? Someone would still have to pick them up, it would be 5 times the work, is that a felony? no of course not... because when we deal with hate crime and hate speech laws, we are dealing with intent, motivation, and the victims' threshold to be offended and hurt, and these are very tricky and subjective things.
Was it these boys intention to utterly dehumanize and demoralize a group of people on campus? If so, what assholes?!.... should that constitute a felony? I honestly don't know.
Was it their intention for this to be a joke with no actual harm being done, just a little fun at other's expense? Do these boys posess the capacity to know how hurtful their actions could be? Maybe they don't... they are obviously stupid. Maybe they really don't comprehend how hurtful their actions could be. In that case should these ignorant college students be sent to prison on felony charges... for basically lacking both empathy and good sense?
These are the muddy waters we must tread in when we consider how to enforce hate crime and hate speech legislation. I wont say, in the case of enforcing hate crime laws, that it is always a bad idea, but I will say that to do so effectively, you must be crystalline on the motivations, and intent of the accused, and that is very difficult indeed.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
dlvstudent
Saturn Smith
Behind Blue Eyes
Bill Meradeia
Rick Lucke
Placebostudman
Salon.com
Comments
Politically correct run amok...again
At what point do we, the intellectual, cultured, and sensible folk of this country get to say enough is enough to the fearful, ignorance of the pitifully obtuse?
Clearly, these boys knew they would get a slap on the wrist for their actions...they did not care, and that did not deter them. Maybe a felony conviction will send the clear message that hate crimes are not victimless and will be punished. Bet the next person will think twice.
The mental and emotional ramifications of actions such as what these students did, is serious and should be treated as such.
Stephanie
Would there have been a crime had black kids thrown slices of white bread or crackers in front of a white dorm? It would be hateful.
How 'bout if someone had scattered faux communion wafers on the steps of a Catholic church? Hateful.
Forgive me for getting personal here, but what if someone decides that you are an unfit mother and wants you arrested for calling your children "stinkybabies?"
Seems someone is always offended by uncomfortable speech, stupid speech and even hateful speech. Still, our constitution guarantees us the right to use it.
And by the way I thought we (as a country) believed that punishment should fit the crime. Cotton-balls....felony?
So what about when you gore someone's ox with your speech? Remember that you thought it was a good idea to imprison folks for speech.
Any other ugly speech is a hate crime.
Sounds great. Go for it.
As a deterrent, that might be a good argument, although when I argue with people against the death penalty, I always argue, there are still murders aren't there, so obviously the death penalty (the ultimate punishment) isnt a deterrent.
The concept of “hate crime” is troublesome. What we are talking about when we talk about "hate crime" is thought crime. Laws are usually designed to protect from physical harm, not hurt feelings. The idea of a slippery slope seems particularly applicable to this.
There are some things that are, perhaps, better left to societal ramifications -- like expulsion from school in this particular case -- rather than assigning criminality to the action. The implication of their action, while offensive, did no physical harm. Most of us encounter situations in life that offend us, hurt our feelings, but the idea of assigning criminal punishment seems to rarely come into our minds. So, as has been pointed out here, the question is where do we draw the line with this kind of approach?
Trying to "police" thoughts is a dangerous endeavor. Hate Speech is something that is also difficult to manage through laws. There is, however, a key difference between hateful "speech" and a hateful "thought"; speech is an action that has a real-world presence while thought does not. Yet, hate speech legislation seems like a threat to one of our most cherished freedoms. I'm not sure hate crime laws are necessarily a good thing in every case, either.