Here's another one which ended up not getting printed...

-----------------------

I'm not sure which is more unacceptable, supporting the flawed concept of "hate crime" legislation and subsequent prosecutions thereunder, or hypocrisy related to the aforementioned. Regardless of which option it is, if it's even possible for one to be more worse than the other, CMU's "diversity" groups such as Students Against Discrimination  and NAACP's CMU chapter are guilty of both. In fact, I'll go as far as to say these organizations pan out to nothing more than a "hate whitey" club.

The latest outcry by organizations such as these, both on and off campus, as well as various individuals, concerns four nooses that were hung recently in the IET building. These groups called for a federal investigation and subsequent prosecution. But for what? Hanging of a noose that really does nothing but give certain individuals an excuse to feel victimized?

The First Amendment exists to protect the expression of thoughts and ideas, no matter how unpopular they might be. Hate crime legislation puts those protections on hold by enhancing penalties when an actual crime is committed, merely due to a perceived bias the perpetrator might have towards the victim. De facto, this trashes what the First Amendment stands for by punishing an individual for their thoughts. That of course is completely discounting the fact that crimes could be committed without ethnic bias being any factor in the first place.

In a November 26th CM-Life article concerning the noose investigation being turned over to the Isabella County Prosecutors office, mention was made regarding Section 750.147b of the Michigan Penal Code - the section concerning ethnic intimidation. A reading of the actual law will reveal another flaw with hate crime legislation, and that is the fact that requires the prosecution (or the plaintiff in a civil case) to be able to read the mind of the defendant and prove that they committed the crime due to a bias. You laugh at the Miss Cleo ads on TV, so why would you think that the District Attorney is able to read minds and prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a crime was committed due to the victims race?

Let's give these groups the benefit of the doubt though, and for the purposes of the next paragraph, say that hate crime legislation is indeed legitimate.

On December 5th of 2006, 6 black students ambushed a white student at Jena High School  in Jena, LA. The attack left the victim with severe injuries. Clearly, if it were a case of 6 white students ambushing a black student, the Jesse Jackson's of the world would be up in arms about how the 6 white students couldn't get punished for anything worse than attempted murder. However, in this case, it's exactly the opposite. Instead of arguing that a "hate crime" was committed, these "diversity" advocates are protesting because the charges, which were reduced from attempted murder to assault and battery, were too great. Give me a break.