By: WP

WP
Wed, 16 Sep 2020 12:50:05 +0000

In reply to Think” target=”_blank” title=”/2020/09/together-as-buckeyes-ohio-states-black-community-responds-to-public-safety-notice-emails/comment-page-1/#comment-118994″>Think”>/2020/09/together-as-buckeyes-ohio-states-black-community-responds-to-public-safety-notice-emails/comment-page-1/#comment-118994″>Think First.

I will be honest, I do not know much about the particular case, but I do want to highlight one thing. Clery doesn’t require a hate crime simply to be used because of a racial epithet. It requires hate for the protected class to be the REASON for the assault. If a fight starts because someone insulted another, and the primary motivation was revenge, it would not matter what was said, because it wasn’t technically based in the identity, but the interaction. I don’t know enough to know if this event warrants a notice, but institutions need to be cautious when issuing these notices as they can give a false sense of motivation. The 2016 Clery Handbook gives several citations and urges that cases are handled case by case; the existence of a word or image doesn’t, by itself, necessarily implicate a hate crime. One prime example was an incident where a group of students graffitti images that would be offensive to their own identity on a wall to get out of class (guessing through community disruption?). It would not necessarily be a hate crime because the intention was not to attack the identity (p. 3-32, “feigned facts”).

I just am throwing this information out, not calling into question the practice as Think First mentions, I am not aware of the specific facts of the case so it is hard to say whether the best call, in hindsight, was made.

There is a need, however, if a danger exists for a timely notice. So something had to be shared. My point is more about classification as a hate crime.