Education - The Best Solution To Hate Crimes

Thanh Nguyen
13 Dec. 2010
FD5 (Final Exam)

Hate based on race, sexual orientation, and religion exist in any society. When this type of hatred fuels a people into taking violent action upon those that they hate, it is a hate crime. This is a type of crime that every society has to face, especially American society. With these kinds of crime still around, we definitely do not live in the “paradise” as some people so call America. Although there are laws that prohibit people from committing hate crimes, hate crimes still happen even now. So are laws really the best solution to hate crimes? I doubt it. Maybe hate crime laws help in some way, however law enforcement is not the best solution to eradicate hate crimes. [Thesis]From my experience, I think the best solution to eliminate hate crimes is through education[Thesis].

First of all, we need to examine the purpose of the Hate Crime bill. The bill’s purpose is to use the law to punish the perpetrators of hate crimes. However, can it really be used to prevent hate crimes in the first place? According to National Acrimony and a Rise in Hate Crimes, the number of active hate groups in the US has grown from 474 in 1997 to 762 in 2004, and in the past four years the number of hate websites has risen from 366 to 468. Also, the FBI reports more than 9000 hate crime victims in 2003 excluding the unreported crimes. The Hate Crime Prevention Act was established in 1998, and the occurrence of hate crimes appear to have increased over the years. Apparently, the bill has had little to no effect to rate of occurrence of hate crimes.

No one is born to be prejudice, and people were not born to hate; rather, we learn it from others in our early stages of life. The way people are raised is a main factor in how they view other people who are different from them. Do their parents view other races as inferior or equal? Children often pick up on their parent’s view of other people. Therefore, parents can easily teach their children to be prejudiced against others who they consider different. Another influence on someone’s views is one’s peer group. One might be a completely rational and accepting person, however when thrown into a situation where the social norm is discrimination, that person might simply conform to the view of others in the group. Taking this stand from experience, I once held hateful views of people who were different from myself. When I was younger, living in a Asian cultural community, I heard people described homosexual people as “weird” and “immoral”, and before I realized it, I began to think of these hateful views as normal in my own mind as well. I was not born to be prejudiced towards homosexuals, rather I learned it from those in my surrounding environment. I prejudged others even before interacting with them. Later on in life, when I had more interactions with homosexual people, I learned that they are just the same as any one of us and “it matters what you call people” (Pramila Jayapal). From my personal experience, I know that education is the best solution to completely eradicate hate crimes.

Education at an earlier age can prevent kids from developing prejudices toward others because of their differences. When they grow up, they will be less likely to commit hate crimes. For older kids, we can educate them to let go of whatever hate they may have against others. There are many ways we can make people realize why hatred against others is wrong through education. Early education for kids, or a workshop program for parents and teachers on how to teach their children to recognize and prevent the presence of prejudice and discrimination are just some of the methods. However, from my perspective, the most important thing to do is to teach all people the moral value of a human being, and how we are all similar in some way. When we pass that value on to our children, they are less likely to commit hate crimes against others. Beside, we have to teach them the value of our society, and demonstrate that we do not tolerate this type of crime, and that there are consequences for such actions.

At this moment, hate crimes are increasing in American society. We only focus on the laws against hate crimes and how to punish perpetrators. However, we failed to understand the root cause of this problem. How a person views something related to racism and hatred, directly reflects on how society has raised them. People were not born to hate. Rather they learn it from others. People commit hate crimes against other because they failed to understand the value of human beings. Those people only see others as different and make them outcasts in their own mind. The only solution to this problem is to use education to teach them the moral value of the fact that we are all human. And for our children, we need to pass that knowledge and our moral value on to them so that they learn from our mistakes and can pass it on to others. If we can do this, it will help our society to reduce hate crimes drastically in the future.

Works cited:

Chansanchai, Athima. “Bias Crimes Found in All Areas of City.” Seattle Post-Intelligencer. 4May2006. 13 Dec 2006 [http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/268997_bias04.html?source=mypi].

Knickerbocker, Brad. “National Acrimony and a Rise in Hate Crimes.” csmonitor.com. 3 Jun 2005. 13 Dec. 2005 [http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0603/p03s01-ussc.html].

In Defend of Ward Churchill's Case: Freedom of Speech and The US Policies

Thanh Nguyen
07 Dec. 2010
FD4

Should you never question your boss? Or should you not speak up in a meeting because people do not listen to you? Or do you think your ideas are stupid? Does these thoughts sound familiar to you? While I do not know if any of you have ever heard such phrases, I have been told these very words by people in the past. What these statements have in common is they each express a fundamental lack of trust in the “freedom of speech”- the first amendment of the US Constitution; which states, “The First Amendment of the United States Constitution protects the right to freedom of religion and freedom of expression from government interference”. This amendment is the very first in the list of all the amendments in the US Constitution, it is also the most important and fundamental aspect in building a stronger society for America. The First amendment protects the right of people to say what they think and feel. However, the question is: does the First Amendment really protect the right of people to express their personal perspective even when it goes against the popular views of others? Or do the protections of the First Amendment not apply when we become the target of others whose beliefs we have gone against? These are the questions that people have asked the government regarding the case of Professor Ward Churchill, who had offended others when he compared some of the victim of the September 11^th attack as “little Eichmanns” in his essays and books. [THESIS]Even though the statement is insensitive and maybe somewhat outrageous, Professor Churchill does have the right that every American citizen has according the U.S. Laws – that is the right to freedom of speech[THESIS].

As you have probably heard before, the case of Professor Churchill, who made a controversial statement about the tragedy of September 11^th, involved his essay “Some people Push Back: On the Justice of Roosting Chickens”. In this essay Professor Churchill compares the “technocrat corpation” in the heart of the World trade Center as “little Eichmanns” and refers to this tragedy as the “chickens come home to roost”. He claims the event on September 11^th were unavoidable and, from his point of view, a natural result of what he called “unlawful US policy”. Due to these statements Professor Churchill was fired by the University of Colorado at Boulder on July 24, 2007.

One of my classmate, Ryan Watanabe, stated in the class discussion that “Speakers such as Professor Ward Churchill misuse the First Amendment to hide behind these obnoxious claims.” I must disagree with Mr. Watanabe on his stance that Professor Churchill abuses his right to freedom of speech. Professor Churchill's words are somewhat harsh and insensitive, and may even be viewed as outrageous, unpatriotic, or even treasonous in the public opinion. However, he did not violate his right. Professor Ward Churchill' case reminds me of my friend I know in high school who literally hated the US government. He always talked about the US being unjust, and how they killed thousands of people during wars. Was he being guilty for speaking his thoughts? I don't think he was. According to the First Amendment, we all have the right to freedom of religion and the freedom to express ourselves free from any government interference. From my point of view, my friend and Professor Churchill have the rights to express themselves, as guaranteed by the First Amendment. Freedom of speech has always been a very important right for all US Citizens. America is a country of laws and freedom. Each and every one of us has our freedom and the right to be protected in this country. No one has the right get take away those rights from my friend, Professor Churchill, or any one of us. In the case of Professor Ward Churchill, he was fired for what he believed in, and for expressing his point of view to the public. Is this the “justice” that we all believe in? Is this the system that we put all our hope and faith in?

I agree that Professor Churchill may have been insensitive toward people, as also described by my classmate - Nor Nordin, in our class blog. Nordin stated that, “his views on the tragic event where more than 2000 Americans were killed are insensitive and cruel.” I cannot agree more with Nor Nordin; Professor Churchill’s words are indeed cruel, and though I wish he did not write those hurtful word or had made some concession to those who were felt truly hurt by his statements, I also believe that there is no doubt that Professor Churchill had the right to express his feelings and beliefs. To be fired for expressing himself, from what I know, is not justice as the people against him so call. In addition to that, Professor Ward Churchill did claim that those who he compared to as “little Eichmanns” was not intended to include food-service workers, children, janitors, and passers-by who also were killed during the tragic event of September 11^th. In reality, Professor Churchill’s words were actually quite ambiguous, and I believe that those who are free of guilt will surely take it lightly as a mere metaphor. However, for those who have guilt, I feel that his words must have seemed like daggers stabbing deep into their hearts. It is the people who sense hatred and feel threatened most by Professor Churchill’s statements that have worked to harm him after he had taken his stand and spoke out with the truth.

In a transcript from the popular Fox News show, “Hannity & Colmes”, Hannity and Colmes fail to understand Professor Churchill's purpose as merely expressing his belief on what the US government did in the past. Professor Churchill did not incite the terrorist who caused the tragedy in the September 11 event, as Hannity and Colmes suggest, but rather he was pointing out what was the root cause of the terrorism we experienced. In his statement that, “roosting chicken come home to roost”, Professor Churchill did not speak against the US out of hatred for his country, but rather he tried to remark on the fact that for those who supported the US army, and as for the people who died in battle, these people can hardly be considered to be completely innocent. If his this original intentions were to try to overthrown the US government, then Professor Churchill may have indeed violated his First Amendment protections, but this is obviously not the case, and it remains that his original intention was never meant to show support for the act of terrorism, but only to point out how the US government has been at fault.

Professor Ward Churchill was right to quote Malcolm X, “chickens do indeed come home to roost.” There will be chickens coming back to America for many years to come whether US citizens like to acknowledge it or not. That is the way of life, what goes around comes around. Taking his stand on this issue, America has indeed commit many crimes all around the world, and waged many campaigns to invade and take over the lands of indigenous people, and this has helped found the US all the way through the post-World War II era. Such acts are crimes that the US has committed on both moral and legal terms. These are facts and there is not so much as a denial from the US of their occurrence. With imperialism aside, now the US government is trying to make their policies with the primary purpose of dominating and controlling the world financially. I believe that those are the key words and root causes which lead to acts of terrorism toward the US. There is no doubt that the US, or rather, the people who are at the top of the power structure in the US government, bear the responsibility for the crimes that America commits against other countries and people. All these crimes I mention, which are committed by the US, are supported by many types of evidence: documents, academic lectures, and textbooks. There is no question about it. The US has contributed to hurting people whether it is direct or indirect.

Even though Professor Churchill’s use of words in writing and speech is unpleasant and shakes people up a bit, his words get a reaction from people and makes them re-examine their beliefs. Although I do not totally agree with his way of using his words, and his harsh way of stating the truth, perhaps it is just his way of doing things. Besides, he is right that the US government has committed wrongs since the beginning. Crimes by the US have killed tens of millions of innocent people. Professor Churchill is also right about the fact that many American people are ignorant and thereby immoral by choice. His criticism is merely speaking for the people who are hurt by the US government. So who can we blame? From a young age, we were taught to believe what we supposed to believe like, “be careful what you say?” or “stick to a textbook” or “believe in the authority of the government's decisions.” Those are the beliefs and philosophy of life that Americans grow up with, that is what the government wants every one of us to be – people who believe in the system unquestioningly and absolutely.

From my perspective, regarding the accusation that Professor Churchill had violated the freedom of speech, he is innocent. Rather the University of Colorado, without truly understand the purpose of Professor Churchill’s essay, jumped to conclusions, and violated Professor Churchill’s rights by wrongly firing him. Even though his words are unpleasant and insensitive to many, he is not wrong and did not violate his rights, because his opinions are protected by the First Amendment of the US. He does not deserve to lose his job for that. What Professor Ward Churchill tried to do is take his stand on what he truly believes in. What he hopes to get out of his essays, even though it puts himself at stake, is for Americans to understand what truly happens now as a result of US policy. The bottom line of my argument is I do agree with Professor Churchill, chickens do “come home to roost,” and there are many chickens awaiting America for many years to come. With the policies of America at present, terrorism will continue to occur whether we like it or not. If the US is still choosing to be ignorant about this ruthless fact, only god know what may happen to America in the future.

Works cited:

"First Amendment: An Overview." N.d. Legal Information Institute. Cornell Law School. 02 Dec 2010.

[http://www.law.cornell.edu/topics/first_amendment.html]

Nordin, Nor. Online posting. "KAP Eng-215: Attack Ward Churchill". 22 Nov 2010. Laulima Discussion. 02 Dec 2010.

[https://laulima.hawaii.edu/portal/site/KAP.XLSENG215js.201110/page/580d9883-374c-4194-bb60-e4e1fe68988c].

"The Bill of Rights." N.d. NARA Webpage. U.S. National Archives and Records Administration. 20 June 2004. [http://www.archives.gov/national_archives_experience/bill_of_rights_transcript.html]

"Ward Churchill vs. Hannity, Colmes & Horowitz." _FoxNews.com_ 7 Apr. 2006. 02 Dec 2006.

[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,190967,00.html]

Watanabe, Ryan. Online posting. "KAP Eng-215: Attack Ward Churchill". 22 Nov 2010. Laulima Discussion. 01 Dec 2010.

[https://laulima.hawaii.edu/portal/site/KAP.XLSENG215js.201110/page/580d9883-374c-4194-bb60-e4e1fe68988c]

Log of Completed Activities
_X__Nov 9t- Intro to Paper #4. Read the Guidelines for Paper #4. (Confirmation reply required.)
_X__Nov 15M- Complete readings for paper #4. (Confirmation reply required.)
_X__Nov 22M- Laulima Discussion: Attack Ward Churchill
_X__Nov 29M- Laulima Discussion: Defend Ward Churchill
_X__Dec 3F- RD4 due. [50 pts] Review the Review the guidelines. (Confirmation reply required.)
_X__Dec 6M- RD4 evaluations due [50 pts] Review the guidelines. (Confirmation reply required.)
_X__Dec 8W- FD4 due [150 pts] Review the guidelines. (Confirmation reply required.)

In Defense of Ward Churchill: Freedom of Speech and Public Opinion

Thanh Nguyen
03 Dec. 2010
RD4

Should you never question your boss? Or should you not speak up in a meeting because people do not listen to you? Or do you think your ideas are stupid? Does these thoughts sound familiar to you? While I do not know if any of you have ever heard such phrases, I have been told these very words by people in the past. What these statements have in common is they each express a fundamental lack of trust in the “freedom of speech”- the first amendment of the US Constitution; which states, “The First Amendment of the United States Constitution protects the right to freedom of religion and freedom of expression from government interference”. This amendment is the very first in the list of all the amendments in the US Constitution, it is also the most important and fundamental aspect in building a stronger society for America. The First amendment protects the right of people to say what they think and feel. However, the question is: does the First Amendment really protect the right of people to express their personal perspective even when it goes against the popular views of others? Or do the protections of the First Amendment not apply when we become the target of others whose beliefs we have gone against? These are the questions that people have asked the government regarding the case of Professor Ward Churchill, who had offended others when he compared some of the victim of the September 11^th attack as “little Eichmanns” in his essays and books. [THESIS]Even though the statement is insensitive and maybe somewhat outrageous, Professor Churchill does have the right that every American citizen has according the U.S. Laws – that is the right to freedom of speech[THESIS].

As you have probably heard before, the case of Professor Churchill, who made a controversial statement about the tragedy of September 11^th, involved his essay “Some people Push Back: On the Justice of Roosting Chickens”. In this essay Professor Churchill compares the “technocrat corpation” in the heart of the World trade Center as “little Eichmanns” and refers to this tragedy as the “chickens come home to roost”. He claims the event on September 11^th were unavoidable and, from his point of view, a natural result of what he called “unlawful US policy”. Due to these statements Professor Churchill was fired by the University of Colorado at Boulder on July 24, 2007.

One of my classmate, Ryan Watanabe, stated in the class discussion that “Speakers such as Professor Ward Churchill misuse the First Amendment to hide behind these obnoxious claims.” I must disagree with Mr. Watanabe on his stance that Professor Churchill abuses his right to freedom of speech. Professor Churchill's words are somewhat harsh and insensitive, and may even be viewed as outrageous, unpatriotic, or even treasonous in the public opinion. However, according to the First Amendment, we all have the right to freedom of religion and the freedom to express ourselves free from any government interference. From my point of view, Professor Churchill has the right to express himself, as guaranteed by the First Amendment. Freedom of speech has always been a very important right for all US Citizens. America is a country of laws and freedom. Each and every one of us has our freedom and the right to be protected in this country. No one has the right get take away those rights from Professor Churchill. In the case of Professor Ward Churchill, he was fired for what he believed in, and for expressing his point of view to the public. Is this the “justice” that we all believe in? Is this the system that we put all our hope and faith in?

I agree that Professor Churchill may have been insensitive toward people, as also described by my classmate - Nor Nordin, in our class blog. Nordin stated that, “his views on the tragic event where more than 2000 Americans were killed are insensitive and cruel.” I cannot agree more with Nor Nordin; Professor Churchill’s words are indeed cruel, and though I wish he did not write those hurtful word or had made some concession to those who were felt truly hurt by his statements, I also believe that there is no doubt that Professor Churchill had the right to express his feelings and beliefs. To be fired for expressing himself, from what I know, is not justice as the people against him so call. In addition to that, Professor Ward Churchill did claim that those who he compared to as “little Eichmanns” was not intended to include food-service workers, children, janitors, and passers by who also were killed during the tragic event of September 11^th. In reality, Professor Churchill’s words were actually quite ambiguous, and I believe that those who are free of guilt will surely take it lightly as a mere metaphor. However, for those who have guilt, I feel that his words must have seemed like daggers stabbing deep into their hearts. It is the people who sense hatred and feel threatened most by Professor Churchill’s statements that have worked to harm him after he had taken his stand and spoke out with the truth.

In a transcript from the popular Fox News show, “Hannity & Colmes”, Hannity and Colmes fail to understand Professor Churchill's purpose as merely expressing his belief on what the US government did in the past. Professor Churchill did not incite the terrorist who caused the tragedy in the September 11 event, as Hannity and Colmes suggest, but rather he was pointing out what was the root cause of the terrorism we experienced. In his statement that, “roosting chicken come home to roost”, Professor Churchill did not speak against the US out of hatred for his country, but rather he tried to remark on the fact that for those who supported the US army, and as for the people who died in battle, these people can hardly be considered to be completely innocent. If his this original intentions were to try to overthrown the US government, then Professor Churchill may have indeed violated his First Amendment protections, but this is obviously not the case, and it remains that his original intention was never meant to show support for the act of terrorism, but only to point out how the US government has been at fault.

Professor Ward Churchill was right to quote Malcolm X, “chickens do indeed come home to roost.” There will be chickens coming back to America for many years to come whether US citizens like to acknowledge it or not. That is the way of life, what goes around comes around. Taking his stand on this issue, America has indeed commit many crimes all around the world, and waged many campaigns to invade and take over the lands of indigenous people, and this has helped found the US all the way through the post-World War II era. Such acts are crimes that the US has committed on both moral and legal terms. These are facts and there is not so much as a denial from the US of their occurrence. With imperialism aside, now the US government is trying to make their policies with the primary purpose of dominating and controlling the world financially. I believe that those are the key words and root causes which lead to acts of terrorism toward the US. There is no doubt that the US, or rather, the people who are at the top of the power structure in the US government, bear the responsibility for the crimes that America commits against other countries and people. All these crimes I mention, which are committed by the US, are supported by many types of evidence: documents, academic lectures, and textbooks. There is no question about it. The US has contributed to hurting people whether it is direct or indirect.

Even though Professor Churchill’s use of words in writing and speech is unpleasant and shakes people up a bit, his words get a reaction from people and makes them re-examine their beliefs. Although I do not totally agree with his way of using his words, and his harsh way of stating the truth, perhaps it is just his way of doing things. Besides, he is right that the US government has committed wrongs since the beginning. Crimes by the US have killed tens of millions of innocent people. Professor Churchill is also right about the fact that many American people are ignorant and thereby immoral by choice. His criticism is merely speaking for the people who are hurt by the US government. So who can we blame? From a young age, we were taught to believe what we supposed to believe like, “be careful what you say?” or “stick to an textbook” or “believe in the authority of the government's decisions.” Those are the beliefs and philosophy of life that Americans grow up with, that is what the government wants every one of us to be – people who believe in the system unquestioningly and absolutely.

From my perspective, regarding the accusation that Professor Churchill had violated the freedom of speech, he is innocent. Rather the University of Colorado, without truly understand the purpose of Professor Churchill’s essay, jumped to conclusions, and violated Professor Churchill’s rights by wrongly firing him. Even though his words are unpleasant and insensitive to many, he is not wrong and did not violate his rights, because his opinions are protected by the First Amendment of the US. He does not deserve to lose his job for that. What Professor Ward Churchill tried to do is take his stand on what he truly believes in. What he hopes to get out of his essays, even though it puts himself at stake, is for Americans to understand what truly happens now as a result of US policy. The bottom line of my argument is I do agree with Professor Churchill, chickens do “come home to roost,” and there are many chickens awaiting America for many years to come. With the policies of America at present, terrorism will continue to occur whether we like it or not. If the US is still choosing to be ignorant about this ruthless fact, only god know what may happen to America in the future.

Works cited:

"First Amendment: An Overview." N.d. Legal Information Institute. Cornell Law School. 02 Dec 2010.

[http://www.law.cornell.edu/topics/first_amendment.html]

Nordin, Nor. Online posting. "KAP Eng-215: Attack Ward Churchill". 22 Nov 2010. Laulima Discussion. 02 Dec 2010.

[https://laulima.hawaii.edu/portal/site/KAP.XLSENG215js.201110/page/580d9883-374c-4194-bb60-e4e1fe68988c].

"The Bill of Rights." N.d. NARA Webpage. U.S. National Archives and Records Administration. 20 June 2004. [http://www.archives.gov/national_archives_experience/bill_of_rights_transcript.html]

"Ward Churchill vs. Hannity, Colmes & Horowitz." _FoxNews.com_ 7 Apr. 2006. 02 Dec 2006.

[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,190967,00.html]

Watanabe, Ryan. Online posting. "KAP Eng-215: Attack Ward Churchill". 22 Nov 2010. Laulima Discussion. 01 Dec 2010.

[https://laulima.hawaii.edu/portal/site/KAP.XLSENG215js.201110/page/580d9883-374c-4194-bb60-e4e1fe68988c]