Maya Homan – The Stanford Daily https://stanforddaily.com Breaking news from the Farm since 1892 Wed, 27 Sep 2017 03:46:40 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.4.3 https://stanforddaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/cropped-DailyIcon-CardinalRed.png?w=32 Maya Homan – The Stanford Daily https://stanforddaily.com 32 32 204779320 Should attacking police officers be called a hate crime? https://stanforddaily.com/2017/09/27/should-attacking-police-officers-be-a-hate-crime/ https://stanforddaily.com/2017/09/27/should-attacking-police-officers-be-a-hate-crime/#respond Wed, 27 Sep 2017 16:00:24 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1129953 Maya Homan discusses the issues which surround regarding attacks on police officers as hate crimes

The post Should attacking police officers be called a hate crime? appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
In May of 2016, Louisiana made history by becoming the first state to enact a “Blue Lives Matter” law, a decision that added police officers to the protected classes of individuals under the state’s hate crime laws. Thirty-two similar bills have been introduced in a plethora of states, including California, and the legislation has passed in 13 states.

Blue Lives Matter is a pro-police movement that was created in response to the Black Lives Matter movement, which protests police brutality against African-Americans. Proponents of the law hope that the protected status will help reduce violence against the police by creating harsher penalties for attacks on law enforcement officers. There is, however, one indisputable problem with these so-called “Blue Lives Matter” laws: There is no such thing as a “blue life.”

The first hate crime laws were passed as part of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 and made it illegal to intimidate or injure another person because of the other person’s “race, color, religion or national origin.” Since then, certain states have expanded the definition to include disability, sexual orientation and gender identity.

Race, national origin, sexual orientation, disability, gender identity: All of these are characteristics of a person that cannot be changed. They cannot be  hidden, nor do they have a reason to be. Police officers, on the other hand, often cease to be a target the moment they take off their badge and vest. There is a difference.

Now that is not to say that attacking a police officer isn’t wrong – it absolutely is. And there have definitely been instances where police officers were targeted because they were officers. However, hate crime laws have historically served two purposes: to support communities that might not have otherwise received the justice they deserved, and to protect individuals from being targeted for aspects of themselves that they cannot control. While being a law enforcement officer isn’t an easy occupation, it would be inaccurate to suggest that the police fit the same criteria as other communities protected under hate crime laws.

First, it’s important to emphasize that being a police officer is a temporary occupation. Those on the force can choose to leave at any time, find a new occupation and likely not have to worry about being a target anymore. A person of color, meanwhile, can’t just shed their skin and pick up a new one. Someone who identifies as gay or trans can’t just choose to love or be someone else. It’s not the same.

Additionally, hate crime laws are state, not federal, laws, meaning that the protection granted under these laws can vary depending on where you live. Only 45 states have any form of hate crime laws at all, and of the states that do, only 17 states and the District of Columbia cover both sexual orientation and gender identity. Sixteen states do not currently cover either, and the laws that do exist are poorly enforced. From 2010 to 2015, 270 hate crimes were reported, yet only 40 of those were ever prosecuted. Of those 40 cases, only 29 people were ever convicted.

In contrast, even before the formation of Blue Lives Matter, every single state had heightened protections for police officers. Support for increased legislation to protect law enforcement is steadily increasing, along with outcry about the “war on police,” despite the fact that police officers have actually been safer in the last few years than they’ve ever been before. In 2014, 51 police officers were killed nationwide – a jump from 2013, when 27 were killed – but according to Seth Stoughton, assistant law professor at the University of South Carolina and a former police officer, “2013 was the safest year for police officers … in recorded history.” The overall trend indicates that law enforcement is becoming safer and safer: The 1970s were about twice as dangerous for police officers, according to Stoughton, and murders and assaults of police officers have fallen over the last few decades.

That’s not to say that we shouldn’t do what we can to make police officers and communities safer; we absolutely should. But do these laws actually do anything to keep law enforcement officers safe? Experts are unequivocally answering “no.”

According to a statement released by Jay Obernolte, a state assemblyman who tried to pass Blue Lives Matter legislation in California, the laws “send a message to criminals targeting law enforcement officers that their reprehensible behavior will not be tolerated.” Other proponents of the legislation have also mentioned the important role these laws play in deterring attacks on police. It’s unclear, however, just how these laws accomplish that.

Police officers are generally armed, travel together and receive extensive training on both self-defense and how to subdue others. As they are in charge of enforcing the law, they generally receive the benefit of the doubt in courtrooms. Attacks or threats against them are always taken seriously and can even result in the death penalty in certain states. People who attack police officers don’t do so because they think they can get away with it – they do it to send a message.

This begs the question, what message are the Blue Lives Matter laws sending? The whole Blue Lives Matter organization was formed in direct opposition to Black Lives Matter. Hate crimes have never received much attention or many resources until now, despite the spike in hate crimes that has been recorded since the aftermath of the election. The Black Lives Matter movement has persevered through one unjustified shooting after another without any change, while the Dallas shooting inspired a revolutionary set of new laws.

I’m not disputing that the police’s lives matter. I just hope that one day we will realize that everyone else’s do as well.

 

Contact Maya Homan at mayahoman.16 ‘at’ gmail.com.

The post Should attacking police officers be called a hate crime? appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2017/09/27/should-attacking-police-officers-be-a-hate-crime/feed/ 0 1129953
On this week in Stanford history: June 25 -June 30 https://stanforddaily.com/2017/06/30/on-this-week-in-stanford-history-june-25-june-30/ https://stanforddaily.com/2017/06/30/on-this-week-in-stanford-history-june-25-june-30/#respond Fri, 30 Jun 2017 18:08:20 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1129301 The feature “On This Day in Stanford History” details unusual or humorous events that occurred on the same date or week in past years from the Daily archives. On June 25 in . . . 1935: Paul J. Beard, a professor of sanitary sciences, lectured on “Bacteria and Food Poisoning” to dispel rumors and misconceptions […]

The post On this week in Stanford history: June 25 -June 30 appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
The feature “On This Day in Stanford History” details unusual or humorous events that occurred on the same date or week in past years from the Daily archives.

On June 25 in . . .

1935: Paul J. Beard, a professor of sanitary sciences, lectured on “Bacteria and Food Poisoning” to dispel rumors and misconceptions about the seemingly mysterious topic. Beard claimed that metal cans posed no risk of contaminating food, that botulism was considered more harmful than trichinosis and that food poisoning was not real.

1942: Stanford students began their first week of war stamp sales and raised a total of $805 (about $12,500 today) for the war effort. However the head of the stamp committee, Nancy Schermerhorn, admitted that the group hadn’t met its goal of $900 ($14,000 today).

“Next week we hope to reach the $1000 mark; yet this can be done only if everyone cooperates again as they did this time,” Schermerhorn said.

1974: Pulitzer-winning author James A. Michener visited Stanford for a conference on “Communication in the Americas” along with 31 other American and Latin American editors. At the conference, he predicted that television would eventually educate “70 percent of society. . .while the other 30 will approach education with the more traditional “Socratic” method.” He also advised Latin American writers to form an “intellectual underground” to pressure American publications into publishing Latin American writing.

1985: A trial began for nine members of Stanford Out of South Africa (SOSA), who were arrested after protesting the University’s ties to companies that had business dealings with South Africa. The students were charged with “trespassing and failing to disperse when they remained in the Bursar’s Office in Old Union past closing time.”

 

On June 26 in . . .

1928: Stanford dormitories neared capacity as a record number of students enrolled in summer classes. The total number was estimated to be over 1,300 people, and the university even considered opening up an additional dormitory to accommodate all the students to ensure that, “all who desire to live there [at Stanford]  this summer can be cared for.”

1984: San Francisco held its 13th “Lesbian-Gay Freedom Day Parade” where an estimated 100,000 people marched to commemorate the Stonewall Rebellion and support gay and lesbian rights. The event was a “typical mixture of partying, politics and protest,” that was further inflamed by Archbishop John J. O’Connor’s refusal to sign a pledge against homosexual discrimination. New York’s mayor, Edward Koch, revealed that O’Connor’s refusal to sign the pledge “would cost the church about $76 million in city contracts,” or about $181 million today.

 

On June 27 in . . .

1933: Stanford students and other California residents voted to decide whether or not  to repeal the 18th Amendment, a Constitutional Amendment enacted in 1919 which banned the manufacture, sale and transportation of alcohol and established Prohibition. Strong supporters for the repeal of the 18th Amendment included those in the grape industry, who would have benefitted the most from legal sale of alcohol.

1966: Stanford announced the construction of its first co-ed dorms in the university’s history, expected to accommodate an additional 560 students. Although the rooms were still separated into sections based on gender, men and women shared “common dining, lounges and seminar rooms, and jointly [attended] a good many of their classes in the living units.”

1967: The Committee of 15 discovered discriminatory methods utilized in Stanford’s admissions practices, including “clear discrimination against women”. In response, the Committee of 15 suggested a review of the admissions policy to reduce favoritism towards legacies and eliminate de facto segregation against women applying to the university.

 

On June 28 in . . .

1927: Stanford students H. B. Butler and Hubert D. Swim leased the San Carlos Enquirer for a year, with the hopes of acquiring more subscribers and advertisers. At the time, the Enquirer was known for being the only paper to carry legal advertisements. Although Swim was not involved in journalism at Stanford, he was an editor of a paper in Idaho, and Butler was a member of the Stanford Daily.

1932: A simple event article covering a political science professor’s lecture led one reporter to uncover a dead skunk in a manhole. No word on whether the reporter was able to get the quotes he needed for his story.

 

On June 29 in . . .

1928: One additional course was added to the list of classes offered: golf. The classes were intended for “anyone desiring to learn the rudiments of golf, or any golfer who wishes to improve his game.” Male students and faculty members were invited to join the class from 1:30 to 3:30 on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays. Clubs were provided for those who did not have their own, but each participant was required to bring their own golf balls.

1989: Fifty one students were arrested and sentenced to 75 hours of community service each for the May 15 occupation of University President Donald Kennedy’s office. The students stormed the office to protest the lack of ethnic studies classes and full-time ethnic community deans. The students were also placed on a year-long probation for violating Stanford’s Campus Disruption policy.

 

On June 30 in . . .

1972: The United States Supreme Court ruled 5-4 to ban the death penalty, citing a violation of the 8th Amendment. The California State Supreme Court had outlawed the practice in February of that year. These rulings saved an estimated 600 people on death row. Additionally, the Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment “does not exempt reporters from the obligation to respond to a grand jury subpoena in a criminal investigation.”

2011: Angela Exson became Stanford’s first dean for sexual assault and relationship abuse in response to complaints about a culture of sexual abuse on campus. Exson had previously worked with the Women’s Leadership & Resource Center, as well as the Campus Advocacy Network at the University of Illinois.

 

Contact Maya Homan at mthwriter16 ‘at’ gmail.com.

The post On this week in Stanford history: June 25 -June 30 appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2017/06/30/on-this-week-in-stanford-history-june-25-june-30/feed/ 0 1129301