Staff Editorial

n June 12, after agreeing to undergo sensitivity training, Matthew Brown, CC '07 and Stephen Searles SEAS '08 walked away from a class E felony charge for defacing the walls of a Ruggles suite with anti-Semitic, homophobic, and racist graffiti last December. Searles' lawyer excused Searle's act, saying “[Searles] is from Montana and was never exposed to diversification. You can't put him in the middle of New York and expect him to innately understand” [Columbia Spectator, 6/12/06]. This rationale is laughable, and belittles the culture of Middle America, but beyond the individuals' guilt the incident exposed deeper flaws in Columbia's conception of an integrated university.

In accordance with the Family Education Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), Columbia is unable to reveal what stage it is in regarding the Dean's Disciplinary Procedure, or whether for that matter, it has even begun. But no matter the outcome of this procedure, rather than simply condemning the act of hate as an isolated incident, we should be cognizant of the fact that diversity concerns are not new to this university. Instead, Columbia has had a long and problematic attitude towards diversity reform.

Columbia must take this opportunity to better its communication and revise its disciplinary policy. When an anonymous vandal scrawled homophobic drawings across the wall and whiteboard of the president of Proud Colors, the Administration waited eighteen days to condemn the act of hate. Searles' and Brown's victims have said that while individual administrators have been supportive, the students had to initiate all contact themselves.

Perhaps Columbia doesn't understand the lines Searles and Brown crossed or the communities they hurt when they scrawled epithets of hate in a place where Columbia students live and learn. What defines a hate crime is that it attacks not only individuals, but entire groups of people. For instance, by virtue of the thoughtful inclusiveness of Brown's and Searles' attacks, a number of minority groups on campus were threatened. In addition, the incident was an invasion of students' living quarters, which should be a private, personal space but which fall under the protection of Columbia housing, upon which every student depends. As such, the Administration owes a response not only to the individual victims, but to the Columbia community as a whole.

After December's hate crime President Bollinger emailed the Columbia community with the facts of the incident. While he acknowledged that Columbia would consider disciplinary action, President Bollinger should have clarified university procedure on acts of hate at this time or soon after. With six incidents of hate vandalism reported just last year, Columbia must now open a dialogue regarding its current discriminatory and hate crime disciplinary policy.

Both too vague and too narrow, the current policy, available in FACETS, defines discrimination around the concept of less favorable “treatment.” Comparatively, it spends 21 paragraphs delineating rules for demonstrations, rallies, and pickets. The policy defines a hate crime as an act that “[involves] one of the crimes reported above [burglary, murder, aggravated assault, rape, etc.] or bodily injury to any person in which the victim is intentionally selected because of the actual or perceived race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, ethnicity, or disability of the victim.”

Instead of vague phrasing, specific examples should be added, as “treatment” lends broad interpreting power to the Administration without referral to set guidelines. Examples must address incidents of harassment, vandalism, and assault. The hate crime policy must take pains to acknowledge the psychological attacks that cause the targeted person and/or group to feel that their safety is at risk. Finally, this definition should be expanded beyond the individual, as acts of hate harm both individuals and communities.

While we are not recommending a specific punishment for the perpetrators of the Ruggles incident, we are asking for future student input in how the university defines and punishes hate crimes perpetrated within its community. The judiciary process must reflect the feelings and opinions of those marginalized groups affected by hate crimes.

Columbia's first duty is to create an environment where students of every race, gender, sexuality, and creed feel safe to learn and to live with each other. Ad Hoc recognizes that acceptance of full diversity takes life experience, not a few sensitivity sessions. What Columbia can actively aim for is a campus of tolerance, achieved through both positive and negative measures: by diversifying the curriculum and faculty, improving the interaction between disparate groups, engaging in honest and open dialogue, and meting out the appropriate punishment for those who grossly transgress our norms.

The Administration's refusal to engage in a much needed conversation with its students about hate crime policy and procedure underscores its inability to acknowledge its shortcomings in matters concerning diversity. When truly troubling events occur, Columbia ducks its head and tries not to make a fuss. So quick to email regarding fire alarms yet so slow on homophobic scrawlings and swastikas, Columbia must now seize the opportunity to open a sustained dialogue on how hate crimes are reported and prosecuted under university procedure. The Administration has the opportunity to begin righting its ongoing pattern of deflection and secrecy. We urge them to take it.