A Mixed Message

Consider the following points made in a University of Virginia Cavalier Daily editorial endorsing a proposal from the University Judiciary Committee that would allow greater sanctions for violations of the Standards of Conduct “motivated by hate.”

  • Passing an earlier proposal to create a new 13th Standard of Conduct based on hate motivation “would have been an egregious mistake.”

    The first phase of a UJC trial is the trial for guilt, which only considers whether a standard was broken based on facts, evidence and testimony. The second phase of a UJC trial is the trial for sanction. If a student is found guilty in the first phase, the trial becomes a trial for sanction, in which aggravating and mitigating circumstances are taken into account to determine what punishment the guilty student will receive.

    It is impossible to determine hate — what’s in a person’s mind — based on facts and evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. Adding hate as a standard of conduct would have in effect been a speech code, and such speech codes have been consistently struck down by courts as unconstitutional….

    Instead of judging on hate during the first phase of the trial, the proposal passed last night would take hate into account during the sanctioning phase of the trial, which is a much more appropriate place to consider motivation….

  • The UJC rarely deals with a hate crime.

    According to UJC Chair Tim Ormsby, in the past four years, the UJC has seen only one case that could have been seen as a hate-motivated violation, but it was not considered as such because the victim did not allege that it was.

  • The new proposal that would provide an enhanced sanction for hate-motivated violations is unnecessary because

    the UJC already is able to take into account motivation based on race, sexual orientation or minority status, and in all likelihood they would — in the rare case that such a case came before the UJC.

  • The proposal was compromised because it was “endorsed by a number of administrators” who “should keep as far away from the referendum process as possible….”
  • But the proposal should be supported, not because of any “tangible effect it will have” but because of “the important message it will send: Hate is not accepted at the University of Virginia.”

So, let me get this straight: an unnecessary proposal that creates authority that already exists to increase sanctions for offenses that have not occurred based on motivation that “is impossible to determine” should be supported because of “the important message it will send”?

Well, yes. I think this editorial, and the support it encourages, does send a message, but the message isn’t that hate is unwelcome. (Does anyone at UVa actually welcome hate?) It is instead a preening message of proud and self-satisfied, politically correct virtue: students awarding themselves a pat on the back for how hate-free they are.

Perhaps as a reward the administration could install some “Hate Free School Zone” signs around the Grounds.

Say What? (3)

  1. jim rhoads (vnjagvet) February 19, 2006 at 3:35 pm | | Reply

    Somehow, I don’t think Mr. Jefferson would approve of such silliness.

  2. Thomas Jackson February 19, 2006 at 8:12 pm | | Reply

    It seems to me lisence to allow the authorities to find anyone guilty of whatever charges they care to trump up. Let the show trials begin.

  3. mj February 20, 2006 at 11:07 am | | Reply

    It’s more than a message. They’re passing it by underplaying the effect. But in practice it will be a powerful tool to suppress unwanted speech.

    Anyone on the PC side merely has to mention the word “hate” to elevate the stakes for anyone with temerity to break from the prevailing agenda. Most, motivated more by degree pursual, will not take chances.

    For example, how long will it be before the affirmative action bake sales (or anything similarly unpleasant) are referred to as “hate” speech?

Say What?