|
"All that is necessary for the forces of evil to win in the world is
for enough good men to do nothing."
Edmund Burke
In
the wake of several recent, especially brutal hate crimes there
has been renewed attention to the question of how to respond effectively
to bias motivated violence. Specially designed hate crime laws
and effective law enforcement are unquestionably a necessary part
of the answer. But these approaches are not sufficient. Hate crime
is rooted in hatred, and to address hatred at the roots is to
raise and address age-old issues about who we are as a people
and how we define and maintain the communities in which we live.
Law and law enforcement can only touch the outer edges of this
challenge. We are in need of creative approaches.
Historically,
state governments have not been at the forefront in the fight
for civil rights in America, and they may seem an unlikely place
to look for creative leadership. But creative approaches can come
from unexpected quarters. Over the last several years, many states
have been moving in a positive direction when it comes to protecting
the civil rights of their citizens, gradually overcoming a legacy
in which states’ rights meant no civil rights. There has been
an encouraging trend among state attorneys general, many of whom
now take an active role in civil rights enforcement. Some have
become leaders in this effort.
Addressing
hate crime closer to the roots is a particular challenge for law
enforcement officials, because it takes them beyond their traditional
roles. However, if we are to be successful, we must all make more
creative use of what we have to offer this important struggle.
Attorneys general, and those who work on their behalf, are well
positioned to bring together diverse organizations, agencies and
institutions within their states, and they are not unfamiliar
with the power of rhetoric and symbolic actions.
One
creative approach for developing a multifaceted assault on hate
crimes can be built around the lessons presented in a documentary
called "Not In Our Town." Produced by an independent media group
called The Working Group, "Not In Our Town" tells the story of Billings, Montana,
and how members of that community acted together in response to
a spree of hate activities, including vandalism and violence.
These lessons have useful implications for state level law enforcement
officials.
"Not
In Our Town" tells a very compelling story. When the home
of a Native American family was spray painted with racist graffiti,
neighbors responded with a demonstration of support for the family
while a local painters union repainted the house. After an African
American church service was disrupted by a hate group, a broad
spectrum of community members joined them in their worship to
deter further incidents. When a window in the home of a Jewish
family was smashed because of a Menorah displayed in the window,
thousands of town residents responded in solidarity by displaying
Menorahs in their windows. In each instance, the victims felt
the support of the community. Local police officials actively
supported the involvement of the community. The message was effectively
conveyed to the perpetrators of the hate that the people of Billings
would not be divided and they would not be intimidated.
"Not
In Our Town" is the story of people who stepped forward in
simple but effective ways to take up for their neighbors. The
story is especially inspiring because the people involved are
ordinary folks, and the actions they take are the types of things
that any of us could do.
"Not
In Our Town" initially aired on public television stations across
the country in 1994. It inspired many people who saw it, and in
response to the story of Billings, communities all around the
country found similar ways to send the message: "Not In Our Town."
The Working Group has
since made a second documentary, called "Not In Our Town II,"
telling the stories of some of these other communities.
There
are several themes, powerfully developed in the documentaries,
which are central to the "Not In Our Town" approach to hate. First,
it is essential that folks respond in some way. When it comes
to hate, silence is a message of acceptance to the perpetrators
of hate crime. It is important for people to respond to hate in
whatever form it takes. This is true whether law enforcement action
is a practical option or not. Folks often overlook the options
that lie between using the force of law and doing nothing at all.
Both of the "Not In Our Town" videos remind us that there is a
vast array of options for taking action. Edmund Burke was right:
All that is necessary for the forces of evil to succeed is for
enough good folks to do nothing. Our communities and our states
are full of good folks, but we must act.
It
is especially helpful if public officials are among those willing
to speak out. Billings Police Chief Wayne Inman made this point
in the first of the two documentaries. "If a police chief doesn't
take a visible and active role, then the assumption is everything
is all right. And these hate groups have learned from experience
that if a community doesn't respond, then the community accepts.
Silence is acceptance to them."
The
second point is that meaningful response is possible and it can
be accomplished by ordinary citizens. Collective action can be
especially effective. It can be an antidote to the isolating effects
of hate violence and intimidation. Describing the impact when
other Billings community members joined his parishioners in order
to deter Skinhead disruption of his services, the Reverend Bob
Freeman said, "We let them know if you bite one of us, you bite
us all."
The
third point relates to the obstacle to community action; that
is, that good people are typically and understandably reluctant
to get involved. But as powerful as the reluctance is, as strong
as the inertia can be, ordinary citizens who would otherwise stand
on the sidelines can be moved to action if someone calls on them.
In "Not In Our Town," the Reverend Keith Torney speaks to both
this inertia and to the possibility of overcoming it. "It was
very important that we act on it, talk about it, do something
about it, and not just say, 'Oh well, that's a different group
of people.' There is great goodness in the world," he said, "but
we need permission, and ways, to reach out." Gary Modie, a member
of the painters union in Billings, also speaks to this inertia,
and his own involvement testifies to the possibility of overcoming
it. "I end up standing on the sidelines too much. I would feel
something, but I never really did a lot . . . about anything.
I was really glad to help paint the house, and more so, to convey
a message to these guys that the community will not stand for
that."
This
leads to the fourth point, which is that folks can be called to
action. Active encouragement by leaders in the community, including
public officials, can be a critical element in moving folks to
action. Instead of simply assuring the public that the problem
is under control, public officials can solicit the help of institutions,
organizations and just regular folks. Public officials in general,
and attorneys general in particular, can make an important contribution
by being visibly identified with the struggle against hate and
by helping to give ordinary citizens "permission and ways to reach
out."
Recognizing
the power of the stories they were telling, The
Working Group has built a campaign around these documentaries
and has some very good materials available. The campaign is designed
to encourage local communities, working through local institutions
such as newspapers, churches, labor unions, community organizations,
business groups, local governments, local law enforcement and
others, to find creative ways of sending the positive signal that
hate violence and intimidation will not be tolerated and that
those who are targeted by hate crimes, or stand up against hate
crimes, will not be alone.
The
"Not In Our Town" documentaries and the campaign packet relate
most specifically to community level action, and this is where
the action can be most effective. However, the call for community
action can come, and should come, from the state level as well.
Accordingly, they offer a message and an approach which can be
adopted by state level law enforcement officials. If, as the documentaries
point out, people often need to be asked before they will step
forward, state leaders, particularly attorneys general and others
who are responsible for defending rights within the state, are
in a good position to do the asking. This type of action is not
a substitute for law enforcement; on the other hand, it is action
directed at the root of hate crime, at a level of the problem
that cannot be effectively reached by traditional law enforcement
approaches.
At
least two state attorneys general have been influenced by the
story of Billings in their approach to hate violence in their
states. On February 21, 1997, Arizona Attorney General Grant Woods,
with a broad coalition of state civil rights leaders, launched
a "Not In Our State" campaign in Arizona. On May 1, 1997, West
Virginia Attorney General Darrell McGraw joined with the West
Virginia Human Rights Commission in announcing a "Not In Our Town,
Not In Our State" campaign. In the proclamation which declared
the campaign, they called "upon the communities of this state
to take a stand against hate and intolerance and to act collectively,
creatively and decisively against hate and intolerance."
These
state level "calls to action" can have an effect at the community
level in communities throughout the state. Some effects are already
apparent in West Virginia. Most notable was the success folks
in Huntington, West Virginia had in dealing with a Klan rally.
In this town, the Klan’s effort to divide the community with hate
and fear was turned on its head.
Initial
opposition to the Klan by Huntington city officials and other
leaders was moving in the direction of refusing the Klan permits
to assemble. This strategy was destined to fail legally, and would
have set the stage for a Klan public relations victory and the
demoralization of those in the community who wanted to publicly
reject the Klan's hateful message. However, in answer to the call
to action by the West Virginia Attorney General and the State
Human Rights Commission, and with the use of the "Not In Our Town"
documentaries and campaign materials, community leaders refocused
their efforts in more creative directions. The community organized
a Unity Rally in which the citizens of Huntington affirmed and
celebrated their diversity. That event upstaged the Klan demonstration,
and the Unity Rally has since become an annual event.
By
speaking out, citizens can define their community as a place where
differences are celebrated and tactics based on fear or violence
are not tolerated. This is "action" which shifts the
climate of a community and strikes hate at the root. This type
of action can be precipitated by the encouragement of law enforcement
officials at the local and at the state level.
President
Clinton, in a June 7, 1997, radio broadcast, called the problem
of hate crime "one of America's greatest challenges and greatest
opportunities." The challenge is obvious enough. Hate crime represents
a serious and persistent contradiction to the basic principles
of our democracy. The opportunity is less obvious. But the stories
told in "Not In Our Town" help reveal this opportunity. By taking
advantage of these opportunities, and calling on others to do
the same, "activists" of all kinds, from attorneys general
to ordinary citizens, can engage in creative strategies which
effectively respond to hate crime.
Paul Sheridan
|
