Share Your Thoughts On The "Hate Crime Hoax At Ole Miss" (University of Mississippi)

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

U2Bama

Rock n' Roll Doggie
Joined
Oct 4, 2000
Messages
3,405
Location
Gulf Coast State of Mine
Share Your Thoughts On The "Hate Crime Hoax At Ole Miss" (University of Mississippi)

It seems to me that this incident could create an awkward dilemma for the "political correctness" forces. An interesting article by Michelle Malkin

Here's the link and the article:

A terrible racial incident took place at Trent Lott's alma mater last month. But you won't hear about it from Dan Rather or Time magazine or The Washington Post or the NAACP.

That's because what happened at the University of Mississippi in the early morning hours of Nov. 6 has all the markings of a fake hate crime: An apparent racial hoax committed by black students against black students, but blamed on whites -- until the suspects were nabbed last week.

Three black freshmen were accused by the college of scrawling racist graffiti on the doors of two other black students in the Kincannon residence hall on the Oxford campus. Among the hateful epithets: "F-----g N----r" and "F-----g Hoe N----r." Also left on walls and doors spanning three floors of the dorm: A tree with a noose and hanging stick figure and vulgar references to genitalia drawn in blue window chalk.

The financial damage was estimated at roughly $600. But the cultural and psychological damage caused by such crude and twisted acts of Tawana Brawleyism is inestimable. The element of racial animus cloaks the hate crime hoax with a false sense of legitimacy. It's a manipulative attempt to exploit old tensions and deflect suspicion from the actual perpetrators.

At the time the racist vandalism appeared, Ole Miss was commemorating the 40th anniversary of desegregation of its classrooms. Local and national observers immediately assumed the vandals were white.

Black students organized a "Say No to Racism" march and demanded more protection against white-on-black harassment. They blasted the school's president for not apologizing quickly enough for the racial slurs. The school's "Minority Affairs" director demanded that the university establish "programs and procedures" to ensure racial sensitivity and prevent hate crimes. The "Institute for Racial Reconciliation" and the "Committee On Sensitivity and Respect" convened meetings. Activists called for criminally prosecuting the perpetrators under state felony laws or federal hate crime statutes.

But now that the race of the suspects has been revealed, some are seeking to minimize the crime as a "prank." The college will not be bringing criminal charges against the trio. Instead, each suspect faces charges involving five violations of the student code of conduct -- not only for the racially explosive vandalism, but also for allegedly making false and misleading statements to investigators.

That's right. It wasn't enough for these accused sickos to adopt racial terror tactics, destroy property, cast false suspicion on others, and cast doubt on all bona fide victims of such perfidy. They apparently tried to lie their way out of it, too.

The Daily Mississippian student newspaper noted that an "irritated Chancellor Robert Khayat said the entire situation was 'regrettable,' but it taught the university community that no members 'should engage in abusive behavior' and 'before we jump to conclusions and start condemning groups of people, we should know what happened.'"

All well and good, but why allow a double standard of justice to prevail? If the attackers had been white, they faced possible federal prison time. Because the suspects are black, the most serious consequence they face is expulsion. Welcome to equal treatment under the law, 2002-style.

Where is the uproar over the hoaxers' callous use of lynching imagery and flagrant exploitation of the N-word -- at Ole Miss of all places? And where is the national press on this matter? Fake hate crimes are an abhorrently common phenomenon on modern college campuses, where race-consciousness reigns in such a poisonous way that it would make integrationists weep. "Students of color" are herded into separate dorms, separate departments, and separate graduation ceremonies.

Segregation is back all right. But while the media elite's crack reporters are busy rummaging through the dustbins of old history in an effort to paint all conservatives as racially insensitive relics, they continue to ignore one of the outrageous race scandals of the 21st century: how the young beneficiaries of the civil rights movement are squandering and desecrating its legacy of equal respect and justice for all.
 
So does the fact that the perpetrators were black no longer make it a "hate crime"?
 
Speedracer:

It is not expected to be pursued as a "hate crime" since it was African American students who did it as a "prank" in violation of the student code of conduct (much lesser charge than state civil rights or federal hate crime statutes).

~U2Alabama
 
But it had the exact same consequences (up until the perpetrators were caught) as it would have had a bunch of whites done it, and the perpetrators knew this beforehand. On top of that, the primary reason for the prank was to make white people look like bigots.

Why shouldn't they suffer *worse* consequences?
 
Last edited:
Re: Share Your Thoughts On The "Hate Crime Hoax At Ole Miss" (University of Mississippi)

U2Bama said:

Where is the uproar over the hoaxers' callous use of lynching imagery and flagrant exploitation of the N-word -- at Ole Miss of all places? And where is the national press on this matter?


I think the above quote in particular is laughable. The author's sarcasm makes it laughable. Of course, what else would one expect from townhall.com?
 
Another chapter in our history of racial politics. From the speech police to the selective use of hate crime legislation, I am afraid that true equality is not the goal.
 
I don't like the term 'hate crime.' ALL crimes are hate crimes, you don't usually commit crimes against someone you like. Labeling some as 'hate' crimes devalues the victims of crimes committed by someone to another person of the same demographic group if calling it a 'hate' crime bring stiffer penalities.
 
Re: Re: Share Your Thoughts On The "Hate Crime Hoax At Ole Miss" (University of Mississipp

pub crawler said:



I think the above quote in particular is laughable. The author's sarcasm makes it laughable. Of course, what else would one expect from townhall.com?

What do you find "laughable" about it? Is it another example of "silliness"?

~U2Alabama
 
Re: Re: Re: Share Your Thoughts On The "Hate Crime Hoax At Ole Miss" (University of Missis

U2Bama said:

What do you find "laughable" about it? Is it another example of "silliness"?

~U2Alabama

I find the quote laughable because it's so absurd. Here's the quote:

"Where is the uproar over the hoaxers' callous use of lynching imagery and flagrant exploitation of the N-word -- at Ole Miss of all places? And where is the national press on this matter?"

First of all, the author of the editorial, Michelle Malkin, as evidenced by her picture, has no idea what it's like to walk in the shoes of the average black person for even one day. Neither do I. Neither do most of the people reading townhall.com, I suspect.

In light of that fact, her flippant use of the term "lynching" -- a crime perpetrated on black persons up to and including the early part of the last century -- to make her political point borders on being offensive.

Lynchings are part of the Black American historical experience. If you haven't walked in the shoes of the average black person and you're making a sarcastic statment that includes a reference to "lynching imagery," well, shut up.

Second of all, the quote is laughable because it -- and the entire editorial -- is clearly designed for the sole purpose of justifying the agenda of the good folks at townhall.com, a right wing conservative publication.

From the editorial:

"Segregation is back all right. But while the media elite's crack reporters are busy rummaging through the dustbins of old history in an effort to paint all conservatives as racially insensitive relics, they continue to ignore one of the outrageous race scandals of the 21st century: how the young beneficiaries of the civil rights movement are squandering and desecrating its legacy of equal respect and justice for all."

"The dustbins of old history?" Is this a reference to the Trent Lott embarrassment? Yeah, she's right, all that old history should be forgotten. Sure, black Americans weren't allowed to sit with white folk in diners 50 years ago in some parts of the U.S., and Ole Miss desegregated its classrooms 40 years ago, but hell, that was all a long time ago, ya know?

And I'm so convinced that editorial staff at townhall.com is truly concerned about how "the young beneficiaries of the civil rights movement are squandering and desecrating its legacy of equal respect and justice for all."
Uh-huh. yeah.

The townhall.com editorial -- and let's be clear that it's an editorial, not a news article -- is a whiny attempt by a far-right publication to downplay the extent of non-black on black racism existing in the United States today. It's essentially a "feel good" article for disciples of Rush Limbaugh.

And, yes, the editorial is another example of "silliness," too. ;)
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Share Your Thoughts On The "Hate Crime Hoax At Ole Miss" (University of Mi

Just a few responses:

pub crawler said:


First of all, the author of the editorial, Michelle Malkin, as evidenced by her picture, has no idea what it's like to walk in the shoes of the average black person for even one day. Neither do I. Neither do most of the people reading townhall.com, I suspect.

You're right; she has no idea what it's like to walk in the shoes of the average black person. I don't know if it counts for anything, but she does know what it's like to walk in the shoes of a Filipino-American person, as she is the daughter of immigrants from the Phillipines.

pub crawler said:
In light of that fact, her flippant use of the term "lynching" -- a crime perpetrated on black persons up to and including the early part of the last century -- to make her political point borders on being offensive.

Lynchings are part of the Black American historical experience. If you haven't walked in the shoes of the average black person and you're making a sarcastic statment that includes a reference to "lynching imagery," well, shut up.

You may want to re-visit the article and pay attention to the details: the "pranksters" at Ole Miss were the ones who introduced the lynching imagery as evidenced by the following text:

Also left on walls and doors spanning three floors of the dorm: A tree with a noose and hanging stick figure...

Malkin was merely emphasizing the inappropriate nature of "lynching imagery" in what has come to be considered a "prank."

pub crawler said:
Second of all, the quote is laughable because it -- and the entire editorial -- is clearly designed for the sole purpose of justifying the agenda of the good folks at townhall.com, a right wing conservative publication.

From the editorial:

"Segregation is back all right. But while the media elite's crack reporters are busy rummaging through the dustbins of old history in an effort to paint all conservatives as racially insensitive relics, they continue to ignore one of the outrageous race scandals of the 21st century: how the young beneficiaries of the civil rights movement are squandering and desecrating its legacy of equal respect and justice for all."

"The dustbins of old history?" Is this a reference to the Trent Lott embarrassment? Yeah, she's right, all that old history should be forgotten. Sure, black Americans weren't allowed to sit with white folk in diners 50 years ago in some parts of the U.S., and Ole Miss desegregated its classrooms 40 years ago, but hell, that was all a long time ago, ya know?

And I'm so convinced that editorial staff at townhall.com is truly concerned about how "the young beneficiaries of the civil rights movement are squandering and desecrating its legacy of equal respect and justice for all."
Uh-huh. yeah.

The townhall.com editorial -- and let's be clear that it's an editorial, not a news article -- is a whiny attempt by a far-right publication to downplay the extent of non-black on black racism existing in the United States today. It's essentially a "feel good" article for disciples of Rush Limbaugh.

And, yes, the editorial is another example of "silliness," too. ;)

Well, this is your opinion/commentary, and I can see your point, truthfully. But I suspect that you are one who appreciates the double standards that "political correctness" allows. I do not. I think it is a joke and I think it will harm the very purpose it was to serve. It creates much more division than it fosters diversity. And when it is empowered by legislation, either from ivory towers or government buildings, such division becmoes exponential.

~U2Alabama
 
Last edited:
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Share Your Thoughts On The "Hate Crime Hoax At Ole Miss" (University o

U2Bama said:
You're right; she has no idea what it's like to walk in the shoes of the average black person. I don't know if it counts for anything, but she does know what it's like to walk in the shoes of a Filipino-American person, as she is the daughter of immigrants from the Phillipines.

Fair enough. I'm just sayin', I've heard the stories from more than one African American about how they are regarded by white folk on a daily basis, e.g., white women tuck their purses away when they see a black man coming, etc. I think most of us have heard these stories.

Coincidentally, a discussion about the black American experience was taking place a couple days ago on another board I visit and a few black folks were talking about the unusual (and frankly bizzare) treatment they get from non-black folk. These stories and others I've heard like them...... *sigh*..they just bum me out.

You may want to re-visit the article and pay attention to the details: the "pranksters" at Ole Miss were the ones who introduced the lynching imagery as evidenced by the following text:

Also left on walls and doors spanning three floors of the dorm: A tree with a noose and hanging stick figure...

Malkin was merely emphasizing the inappropriate nature of "lynching imagery" in what has come to be considered a "prank."

I understand. I'm just saying her tone was sarcastic when she was relaying the facts of the story. If she hadn't been sarcastic, her meaning would have been different. I probably wouldn't have found it offensive.


Well, this is your opinion/commentary, and I can see your point, truthfully. But I suspect that you are one who appreciates the
double standards that "political correctness" allows.

Eh, there are certain aspects of political correctness I could do without. Mainly, that it can be confusing at times.

For instance, several months ago on this board I used the word "Indian" in reference to Native Americans, and an Interferencer reproved me, busted my chops, told me what an idiot I was, etc.

The fact is, at the reservation I visited, the Indians there used the term "Indian" to refer to others of their community. They also less frequently used the term "Native American."

I also use the term "Black" much more often than "African American" because some black friends of mine told me they find the term "African American" annoying. On the other hand, there are black people who prefer the term "African American" to "black." So yes, it can be confusing.

Some types of "political correctness" are appropriate. In some instances, when I'm being "politically correct," I am making a conscious effort to be sensitive to the way others have been treated unfairly. I want to treat them just as I like to be treated.

For example, the black guy on the other board said that one thing that he finds peculiar is that white (and probably other non-black) people laugh at any joke he makes, no matter how lame it is.

*grabs comment from other board*

Actually, here's what he said (note his facetiousness):


"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Advantages [of being black in America]:

Each time I open my mouth, everything I say is considered cool and interesting. Even when I crack the lamest joke, it's still considered funny

I can walk down a scary neighborhood and be scared stiff in my pants, but because I'm black, I don't get messed with

I can bust out the lame, whack dance moves at a party and still have people cheering me on

----------------------------------------------------------------- "


Of course he's being humorous, but he's also being truthful. That's just a sampling of many odd things that were mentioned in that discussion by black folks with respect to how they are treated differently.

I'm supposing there is sort of a minstrel-effect involved in that "all jokes told by black people are funny" dynamic. I dunno, but it's something to think about.

As far as the "double standards" that political correctness allows, well, with respect to the Ole Miss incident, that's another discussion. (Notice I didn't even broach the issue of what actually occured at Ole Miss and whether the punishment or lack thereof was appropriate. I simply commented that I was annoyed with the way townhall.com framed the discussion of what occured at Ole Miss.)

U2Bama said:
I do not [appreciate the double standards that "political correctness" allows]. I think it is a joke and I think it will harm the very purpose it was to serve. It creates much more division than it fosters diversity. And when it is empowered by legislation, either from ivory towers or government buildings, such division becmoes exponential.

This is a whole other (huge) discussion. I'll save it for another time.

Peace.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom