Evaluation

I completed the evaluation!

Our government is responsible for increasing our country’s safety against hate crimes. Strengthening laws pertaining to hate crimes will decrease the number of hate crimes committed. One attempt at this was the establishment of the Hate Crimes Statistics Act, which “requires the Justice Department to acquire data on crimes which "manifest prejudice based on race, religion, sexual orientation, or ethnicity" from law enforcement agencies across the country and to publish an annual summary of the findings.”1 Since the Hate Crime Statistics Act was created in 1990, the number of hate crimes reported has consistently ranged around 7,500 or more annually2. According to a new study by the Leadership Conference on Civil Right Education Fund, this approximates to at least one per hour. 2 Therefore, it seems that for every hate crime that is occurring, there is another one being plotted.
Hate crimes target people of different race, religion, gender, sexual orientation (most recently changed to also include the transgender community) 4 and even those who exhibit a disability5. These crimes range from name calling and vandalizing, to murder. Some feel that hate crime legislation will inhibit free speech, while others believe that establishment of stronger hate crime legislation will, more importantly, decrease crime rate. As a witness of such crimes, I support the establishment of more improved hate crimes laws. With the establishment of stricter laws, instances such as the murder of Matthew Sheppard, a student of the University of Wyoming who was tied to a fence and tortured to death by two homophobes, will be less likely to occur. Some claim the laws would be a form of policing our thoughts, but policing our thoughts leads to policing of actions. People will learn, at some point, that their actions have consequences, which will result in fewer hate crimes committed.
Crimes that result because of hatred or prejudice against others has been a reality for thousands of years, beginning as far back as the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries (maybe even further), with the crimes committed against Native Americans by the Europeans and continuing on until today. Most of them stem off of religious and ethnic biases, especially those committed in the United States. According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), however, the term hate crimes did not become a part of national vocabulary, specifically in the United States, until the 1980s, when emerging hate groups, like the Skinheads, began committing numerous bias-related crimes. The first recorded "Hate Crime" occurred in 1922 when the Federal Bureau of Investigation encountered a rising Ku Klux Klan, white supremacist movement in Louisiana. Two people were kidnapped, tortured and murdered while thousands more received threats. Although the term has recently been defined, world history has, in a sense, been defined by such crimes. From the Romans’ persecution of Christians; the Nazis’ “final solution” for the Jews and the “ethnic cleansing” in Bosnia and genocide in Rwanda to the hate crimes being committed today against gays, blacks, Jews and any one else who doesn’t meet the attackers’ “approval”, these crimes have pretty much been the foundation of history.6

Since the 1980’s, the media has made the United States public more aware of Hate Crimes. Two specific tragedies initiated this heightened awareness. One was the shooting death (by a local KKK leader) of controversial radio talk show host Alan Berg in Denver, Colorado in 1984. Another occurred two years later, with the attack of three African-American men who were stuck in the white, supremacist area of Howard Beach. Queens after their car broke down. One of the men was even killed after he was chased in front of a speeding car. These cases, with the help of the media, are the reason hate crimes have been taken more seriously by state and national governments. Although many agree that hurting someone because of who they are is wrong, the current issue with hate crime legislation arises because of the ambiguity and differences in the definition of a hate crime.

The term “Hate Crime” began being used because it is broad enough to cover crimes committed not only against African Americans, but also against gays, Muslims, Koreans, and members of other various groups.5 The Hate Crime Statistics Act of 1990 defines Hate Crimes as “crimes that manifest evidence of prejudice based on race, religion, sexual orientation, or ethnicity, including, where appropriate, the crimes of murder, non-negligent manslaughter, forcible rape, aggravated assault, simple assault, intimidation, arson, and destruction, damage or vandalism of property.”5 However, not all states adopted this definition. For example, some do not clearly tell which action can be considered a hate crime and some include disabled people and gender while others do not. The vagueness of the definition allows for confusion between a bias-motivated crime and expression of a thought (which is protected under the U.S. Constitution). However, a major difference between a hate crime and any other crime is that a hate crime does not only affect the one or few people that were attacked, but it also affects the entire group of people the victim identifies his or herself with. A bias-motivated offense will cause discomfort for members of a targeted group, but a violent hate crime will cause terror among the certain community because they will feel that “others are out to get them”. Apart from their psychological impacts, violent hate crimes can produce even more violence in the sense that the attacked group might feel obligated to retaliate- making the problem even bigger. Therefore, criminal acts motivated by bias may carry far more weight than other types of criminal acts, so it is required that such crimes receive more severe punishment than a non-bias related crime.

Distinguishing between a bias and non-bias related hate crime does require policing of our thoughts, which critics of stronger hate crime legislation oppose, but it is essential because policing of thoughts allows deference of certain actions. The laws are there to prevent hate-related thoughts from becoming an action. Although many believe that thoughts cannot truly be monitored, the actions themselves often tell you what the aggressor was thinking at the time; therefore, they can be monitored. Moreover, “Legislation does not suppress free speech because the law is motivated by the desire to equalize a greater harm that is inflicted by bias-inspired thoughts, not by an attempt to suppress the expression of thoughts”3. In an attempt to minimize this issue, “many jurisdictions have established hate-crime units in their police departments”6, and some regional task forces are spending their time investigating hate crimes. Some States have increased law enforcement training on hate crime and utilize school- and community-based prevention programs and many nonprofit organizations, such as the Anti-Defamation League, have also helped with prevention programs, services to victims, and civil lawsuits filed on behalf of victims against hate-crime perpetrators.1 But this is not enough. New laws that cause the aggressor to witness the consequences of their actions need to be established.

In attempt to limit the increasing amount of Hate Crimes committed, the United States government enacted certain laws that are designed to punish the act, not the thought behind the act. The Supreme Court has ruled that while a defendant's bias cannot be used as evidence of guilt, it can be used to help establish a motive, which is an important aspect of any criminal case.5 For example , there is The Hate Crime Statistics Act of 1990, which was stated previously. Another law called the Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007, requires that “anyone who commits a crime due to actual of perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability, can be sentenced to no more than ten years, unless kidnapping, attempted kidnapping, aggravated sexual abuse, attempted aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill is involved.” Additionally, the 1969 Federal Hate Crimes Law, which now includes the transgender community because of the Matthew Sheppard Act of 2009, punishes those who "willingly injures, intimidates or interferes with another person, or attempts to do so, by force because of the other person's race, color, religion or national origin" and because of his/her attempting to engage in one of six types of federally protected activities, such as attending school, patronizing a public place/facility, applying for employment, acting as a juror in a state court or voting” with imprisonment or payment of a fine. And The Violent Crime and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (which only applies to federal crimes) requires the United States Sentencing Commission to increase the penalties for hate crimes committed on the basis of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, or sex of any person.2 The FBI also gathers data for Hate Crime Statistics. 6

I propose that, firstly, more research be done to create a definition that includes all that a hate crime entails. The Passage of the Matthew Sheppard’s Act, which changed the 1969 Federal Hate Crimes Law to include the transgender community in its definition of a hate crime, is proof that only with research and action can we make improvements. Also, a problem arises from the enactment of laws that require gathering information to give statistics. First of all, the statistics are probably inaccurate due to underreporting and secondly, information about the statistics is not readily available to the public, so many are not completely aware of what is going on around them. So, we need to make statistics available to everyone. It is difficult to tackle the problem of under reporting, so the government should find ways to accommodate that (by, for example, being more exact with the information they do have and distributing that information). The penalties for hate crimes are severe but it does not make sense that laws apply in some cases and not others. Although some may feel it is extreme, I believe we should sentence the violators to a type of “sentence” that forces them or their loved ones to experience what their victims did. Sometimes, people don’t get the message until something bad happens for them.
Everyone is entitled to dislike someone, not everyone is perfect, but that does not mean that violent crimes are allowed to be committed because of it. A Hate Crime is a Hate Crime, it should not be punished based on where it happened, or how it happened, or whom it happened to, rather it should be based on why it happened- and if the only way to do that is by monitoring our thoughts then that’s allowed. After all, our actions are based on our thoughts.

Works Cited page

Works Cited


1. "About Hate Crimes." PartnersAgainstHate. 2003. Leadership Conference on Civil Rights Education Fund, Web. 26 Oct 2009. http://www.partnersagainsthate.org/about_hate_crimes/index.html.

2. "Hate Crimes & LLEHCPA." civilrights.org. 2009. Leadership Conference on Civil Rights/Leadership Conference on Civil Rights Education Fund, Web. 26 Oct 2009. http://www.civilrights.org/hatecrimes/.

3. Shively, Michael, and Carrie Mulford. "Hate Crimes in America: The Debate Continues." National Institute of Justice. June 2007. National Criminal Justice Association, Web. 6 Nov 2009. http://www.ojp.gov/nij/journals/257/hate-crime.html.

4. THE ASSOCIATED, PRESS "Obama Signs Hate Crimes Bill." New York Times 29 Oct. 2009: 17. Academic Search Complete. EBSCO. Web. 6 Nov. 2009.

5. U.S Department of Justice, . "A Policymaker's Guide to Hate Crimes ." November 1999. National Criminal Justice Association, Web. 5 Nov 2009. http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/bja/162304.pdf.

6. "Federal Bureau of Investigation Hate Crime." Federal Bureau of Investigation. U.S. Department of Justice, Web. 7 Dec 2009. http://www.fbi.gov/hq/cid/civilrights/hate.htm.

Extra Credit

Ariella Aghalarian

On November 16th I attended the conference regarding the riot in Pittsburg during the G20 summit that took place on September 24th and 25th. I attended this meeting wanting to learn more about the topic after viewing those unbelievable you tube videos about what the police were doing. I was angered. I could not believe that in a country where free speech is so widely preached there are actually specific tactics used to prevent it. I was especially dumbfounded when I heard that police were using tactics only used in Iraq against terrorists.It is obvious that the police used this as an opportunity to show that "no one has more power than the government." The fact that they were punishing others for things we are obviuosly allowed to do at any other time (such as "twittering") is outrageous, but hurting people just because they were innocent bystanders who were not even given the opportunity to leave when warned is even more babaric. I understand that there needed to be some control at the protests, but the police have NO RIGHT to do things to entice the protestors in order for them to make a point of their authority. Using tactics that like blocking the protesters and using sonic guns so that hey arer writhing in pain and cant even move. Using free speech zones- going directly against our first amendment right to free speech (which supposedly grants free speech- no matter where you are). The actions police took during this protest exemplify the exact opposite of what America portrays itself as. And then America wonders why some countrries may not take it as seriuoslly as we want them to. I wonder why.

Hate Crime essay: Revision revised

Our government is responsible for increasing our country’s safety against Hate crimes. Strengthening laws pertaining to Hate Crimes will decrease the number of Hate Crimes committed. One attempt at this was the establishment of the Hate Crimes Statistics Act, which “requires the Justice Department to acquire data on crimes which "manifest prejudice based on race, religion, sexual orientation, or ethnicity" from law enforcement agencies across the country and to publish an annual summary of the findings.” Since the Hate Crime Statistics Act was created in 1990, the number of Hate crimes reported has consistently ranged around 7,500 or more annually. According to a new study by the Leadership Conference on Civil Right Education Fund, this approximates to at least one per hour. Therefore, it seems that for every Hate Crime that is occurring, there is another one being plotted. Although many fear that with stronger Hate Crime legislation anything can now be considered a Hate Crime, the establishment of stronger Hate Crime legislation will, more importantly, lead to a decrease in the crime rate.

Hate crimes target people of different race, religion, gender, sexual orientation (most recently changed to also include the transgender community) and even those who exhibit a disability. These crimes range from name calling and vandalizing, to murder. With the establishment of stricter laws, instances such as the murder of Matthew Sheppard, a student of the University of Wyoming, will be less likely to occur.

Crimes that result because of hatred or prejudice against others has been a reality for thousands of years, beginning as far back as the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries (maybe even further), with the crimes committed against Native Americans by the Europeans and continuing on until today. Most of them stem off of religious and ethnic biases, especially those committed in the United States. According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), however, the term Hate Crimes did not become a part of national vocabulary, specifically in the United States, until the 1980s, when emerging hate groups, like the Skinheads, began committing numerous bias-related crimes. The first recorded "Hate Crime" occurred in 1922 when the Federal Bureau of Investigation encountered a rising Ku Klux Klan, white supremacist movement in Louisiana. Two people were kidnapped, tortured and murdered while thousands more received threats. Although the term has recently been defined, world history has, in a sense, been defined by such crimes. From the Romans’ persecution of Christians; the Nazis’ “final solution” for the Jews and the “ethnic cleansing” in Bosnia and genocide in Rwanda to the hate crimes being committed today against gays, blacks, Jews and anyone else who doesn’t meet the attackers’ “approval”, these crimes pretty much been the foundation of history.
Since the 1980’s, the media has made the United States public more aware of Hate Crimes. Two specific tragedies initiated this heightened awareness. One was the shooting death (by a local KKK leader) of controversial radio talk show host Alan Berg in Denver, Colorado, in 1984 and two years later, the attack of three African-American men who were stuck in the white, supremacist area of Howard Beach after their car broke down. One of the men was even killed after he was chased in front of a speeding car. These cases, with the help of the media, are the reason hate crimes have been taken more seriously by State and National governments. Although many agree that hurting someone because of who they are is wrong, the current issue with hate crime legislation arises because of the ambiguity and differences in the definition of a hate crime.



The term “Hate Crime” began being used because it is broad enough to cover crimes committed not only against African Americans, but also against gays, Muslims, Koreans, and members of other various groups. The Hate Crime Statistics Act of 1990 defines Hate Crimes as “crimes that manifest evidence of prejudice based on race, religion, sexual orientation, or ethnicity, including, where appropriate, the crimes of murder, non-negligent manslaughter, forcible rape, aggravated assault, simple assault, intimidation, arson, and destruction, damage or vandalism of property.” However, not all states adopted this definition. For example, some do not clearly tell which action can be considered a Hate Crime and some include disabled people and gender while others do not.

Many believe that Hate Crimes will continue to be committed because the action is based off of an existing hate that will never die out. However, even though there will still be the feelings of hate, knowing that there are major consequences to be faced inhibit the action. Many also feel that the laws will be “policing our thoughts”, being that our actions are based on our thoughts. However, there is a reason why many of us don’t act on our thoughts- because we know there will be consequences. Similarly, having to deal with more consequences will prevent hateful thoughts from being acted upon; therefore, making the “sacrifice” of having our thoughts exposed worth it. This policing of thoughts mostly comes in when distinguishing between a bias and non-bias related hate crime and although many believe that thoughts cannot truly be monitored, the actions themselves often tell you what the aggressor was thinking at the time; therefore, they can be monitored. Moreover, some also feel that Hate crime legislation will inhibit free speech. Legislation does not suppress free speech because the law is motivated by the desire to equalize a greater harm that is inflicted by bias-inspired thoughts, not by an attempt to suppress the expression of thoughts.
In an attempt to minimize this issue, “many jurisdictions have established hate-crime units in their police departments”, and some regional task forces are spending their time investigating hate crimes. Some States have increased law enforcement training on hate crime and utilize school- and community-based prevention programs and many nonprofit organizations, such as the Anti-Defamation League, have also helped with prevention programs, services to victims, and civil lawsuits filed on behalf of victims against hate-crime perpetrators. But this is not enough. New laws that cause the aggressor to witness the consequences of their actions need to be established.

In attempt to limit the increasing amount of Hate Crimes committed, the United States government enacted certain laws that are designed to punish the act, not the thought behind the act. The Supreme Court has ruled that while a defendant's bias cannot be used as evidence of guilt, it can be used to help establish a motive, which is an important aspect of any criminal case. For example, there is The Hate Crime Statistics Act of 1990, which was stated previously. Another law called the Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007, requires that “anyone who commits a crime due to actual of perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability, can be sentenced to no more than ten years, unless kidnapping, attempted kidnapping, aggravated sexual abuse, attempted aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill is involved.” Additionally, the 1969 Federal Hate Crimes Law, which now includes the transgender community because of the Matthew Sheppard Act of 2009, punishes those who "willingly injures, intimidates or interferes with another person, or attempts to do so, by force because of the other person's race, color, religion or national origin" and because of his/her attempting to engage in one of six types of federally protected activities, such as attending school, patronizing a public place/facility, applying for employment, acting as a juror in a state court or voting” with imprisonment or payment of a fine. And The Violent Crime and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (which only applies to federal crimes) requires the United States Sentencing Commission to increase the penalties for hate crimes committed on the basis of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, or sex of any person. The FBI also gathers data for Hate Crime Statistics.


I propose that, firstly, more research be done to create a definition that includes all that a hate crime entails. The Passage of the Matthew Sheppard’s Act, which changed the 1969 Federal Hate Crimes Law to include the transgender community in its definition of a hate crime, is proof that only with research and action can we make improvements. Also, a problem arises from the enactment of laws that require gathering information to give statistics. First of all, the statistics are probably inaccurate due to underreporting and secondly, information about the statistics is not readily available to the public, so many are not completely aware of what is going on around them. So, we need to make statistics available to everyone. It is difficult to tackle the problem of under reporting, so the government should find ways to accommodate that (by, for example, being more exact with the information they do have and distributing that information). The penalties for hate crimes are severe but it does not make sense that laws apply in some cases and not others. Although some may feel it is extreme, I believe we should sentence the violators to a type of “sentence” that forces them or their loved ones to experience what their victims did. Sometimes, people don’t get the message until something bad happens for them.
A Hate Crime is a Hate Crime, it should not be punished based on where it happened, or how it happened, or whom it happened to, rather it should be based on why it happened- and if the only way to do that is by monitoring our thoughts then that’s allowed. After all, our actions are based on our thoughts.

Argumentative Essay on Hate Crime Legislation: Rough Draft revised

Our government is responsible for increasing our country’s safety against Hate crimes. Strengthening laws pertaining to Hate Crimes will decrease the number of Hate Crimes committed. One attempt at this was the establishment of the Hate Crimes Statistics Act, which “requires the Justice Department to acquire data on crimes which "manifest prejudice based on race, religion, sexual orientation, or ethnicity" from law enforcement agencies across the country and to publish an annual summary of the findings.” Since the Hate Crime Statistics Act was created in 1990, the number of Hate crimes reported has consistently ranged around 7,500 or more annually. According to a new study by the Leadership Conference on Civil Right Education Fund, this approximates to at least one per hour. Therefore, it seems that for every Hate Crime that is occurring, there is another one being plotted.

Hate crimes target people of different race, religion, gender, sexual orientation (most recently changed to also include the transgender community) and even those who exhibit a disability. These crimes range from name calling and vandalizing, to murder. Some feel that Hate crime legislation will inhibit free speech, while others believe that establishment of stronger hate crime legislation will, more importantly, decrease crime rate. As a witness of such crimes, I support the establishment of more improved hate crimes laws. With the establishment of stricter laws, instances such as the murder of Matthew Sheppard, a student of the University of Wyoming, will be less likely to occur. Even though the laws would be a form of policing our thoughts, as some claim, policing our thoughts leads to policing of actions which will result in fewer crimes committed because people will learn, at some point that their actions have consequences.


Crimes that result because of hatred or prejudice against others has been a reality for thousands of years, beginning as far back as the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries (maybe even further), with the crimes committed against Native Americans by the Europeans and continuing on until today. Most of them stem off of religious and ethnic biases, especially those committed in the United States. According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), however, the term Hate Crimes did not become a part of national vocabulary, specifically in the United States, until the 1980s, when emerging hate groups, like the Skinheads, began committing numerous bias-related crimes. The first recorded "Hate Crime" occurred in 1922 when the Federal Bureau of Investigation encountered a rising Ku Klux Klan, white supremacist movement in Louisiana. Two people were kidnapped, tortured and murdered while thousands more received threats. Although the term has recently been defined, world history has, in a sense, been defined by such crimes. From the Romans’ persecution of Christians; the Nazis’ “final solution” for the Jews and the “ethnic cleansing” in Bosnia and genocide in Rwanda to the hate crimes being committed today against gays, blacks, Jews and any one else who doesn’t meet the attackers’ “approval”, these crimes pretty much been the foundation of history.
Since the 1980’s, the media has made the United States public more aware of Hate Crimes. Two specific tragedies initiated this heightened awareness. One was the shooting death (by a local KKK leader) of controversial radio talk show host Alan Berg in Denver, Colorado, in 1984 and two years later, the attack of three African-American men who were stuck in the white, supremacist area of Howard Beach after their car broke down. One of the men was even killed after he was chased in front of a speeding car. These cases, with the help of the media, are the reason hate crimes have been taken more seriously by State and National governments. Although many agree that hurting someone because of who they are is wrong, the current issue with hate crime legislation arises because of the ambiguity and differences in the definition of a hate crime.
The term “Hate Crime” began being used because it is broad enough to cover crimes committed not only against African Americans, but also against gays, Muslims, Koreans, and members of other various groups. The Hate Crime Statistics Act of 1990 defines Hate Crimes as “crimes that manifest evidence of prejudice based on race, religion, sexual orientation, or ethnicity, including , where appropriate ,the crimes of murder, non-negligent manslaughter, forcible rape, aggravated assault, simple assault, intimidation, arson, and destruction, damage or vandalism of property.” However, not all states adopted this definition. For example, some do not clearly tell which action can be considered a Hate Crime and some include disabled people and gender while others do not. The vagueness of the definition allows for confusion between a bias-motivated crime and expression of a thought (which is protected under the U.S. Constitution). However, a major difference between a Hate Crime and any other crime is that a Hate Crime does not only affect the one or few people that were attacked, but it also affects the certain group the victims were a part of. A bias-motivated offense will cause an amount of discomfort among members of a targeted group, and a violent hate crime will cause terror among the certain community because they will feel that “others are out to get them”. Apart from their psychological impacts, violent hate crimes can produce even more violence in the sense that the attacked group might feel obligated to retaliate- making the problem even bigger. Therefore, criminal acts motivated by bias may carry far more weight than other types of criminal acts, so it is required that such crimes receive more severe punishment than a non-bias related crime.
Distinguishing between a bias and non-bias related hate crime does require policing of our thoughts, which critics of stronger hate crime legislation oppose, but it is essential because policing of thoughts allows deference of certain actions. The laws are there to prevent hate-related thoughts from becoming an action. Although many believe that thoughts cannot truly be monitored, the actions themselves often tell you what the aggressor was thinking at the time; therefore, they can be monitored. Moreover, Legislation does not suppress free speech because the law is motivated by the desire to equalize a greater harm that is inflicted by bias-inspired thoughts, not by an attempt to suppress the expression of thoughts. In an attempt to minimize this issue, “many jurisdictions have established hate-crime units in their police departments”, and some regional task forces are spending their time investigating hate crimes. Some States have increased law enforcement training on hate crime and utilize school- and community-based prevention programs and many nonprofit organizations, such as the Anti-Defamation League, have also helped with prevention programs, services to victims, and civil lawsuits filed on behalf of victims against hate-crime perpetrators. But this is not enough. New laws that cause the aggressor to witness the consequences of their actions need to be established.
In attempt to limit the increasing amount of Hate Crimes committed, the United States government enacted certain laws that are designed to punish the act, not the thought behind the act. The Supreme Court has ruled that while a defendant's bias cannot be used as evidence of guilt, it can be used to help establish a motive, which is an important aspect of any criminal case. For example, there is The Hate Crime Statistics Act of 1990, which was stated previously. Another law called the Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007, requires that “anyone who commits a crime due to actual of perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability, can be sentenced to no more than ten years, unless kidnapping, attempted kidnapping, aggravated sexual abuse, attempted aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill is involved.” Additionally, the 1969 Federal Hate Crimes Law, which now includes the transgender community because of the Matthew Sheppard Act of 2009, punishes those who "willingly injures, intimidates or interferes with another person, or attempts to do so, by force because of the other person's race, color, religion or national origin" and because of his/her attempting to engage in one of six types of federally protected activities, such as attending school, patronizing a public place/facility, applying for employment, acting as a juror in a state court or voting” with imprisonment or payment of a fine. And The Violent Crime and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (which only applies to federal crimes) requires the United States Sentencing Commission to increase the penalties for hate crimes committed on the basis of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, or sex of any person. The FBI also gathers data for Hate Crime Statistics.
I propose that, firstly, more research be done to create a definition that includes all that a hate crime entails. The Passage of the Matthew Sheppard’s Act, which changed the 1969 Federal Hate Crimes Law to include the transgender community in its definition of a hate crime, is proof that only with research and action can we make improvements. Also, a problem arises from the enactment of laws that require gathering information to give statistics. First of all, the statistics are probably inaccurate due to underreporting and secondly, information about the statistics is not readily available to the public, so many are not completely aware of what is going on around them. So, we need to make statistics available to everyone. It is difficult to tackle the problem of under reporting, so the government should find ways to accommodate that (by, for example, being more exact with the information they do have and distributing that information). The penalties for hate crimes are severe but it does not make sense that laws apply in some cases and not others. Although some may feel it is extreme, I believe we should sentence the violators to a type of “sentence” that forces them or their loved ones to experience what their victims did. Sometimes, people don’t get the message until something bad happens for them.
A Hate Crime is a Hate Crime, it should not be punished based on where it happened, or how it happened, or whom it happened to, rather it should be based on why it happened- and if the only way to do that is by monitoring our thoughts then that’s allowed. After all, our actions are based on our thoughts.

Argumentative Essay on Hate Crime Legislation: Rough Draft

Our government is responsible for increasing our country’s safety against hate crimes by strengthening current hate crime legislation, despite the limitation of our freedoms that might bring on. Since the Hate Crime Statistics Act was established in 1990, the number of hate crimes reported has consistently ranged around 7,500 or more annually. According to a new study by the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights Education Fund, this approximates to nearly one every hour of every day. Therefore, it seems that for every hate crime that is occurring, there is another one being plotted. Some feel that hate crime legislation will inhibit free speech, while others believe that establishment of stronger hate crime legislation will, more importantly, decrease crime rate. hate crimes target people of different race, religion, gender, sexual orientation (most recently changed to also include the transgender community) and even those who exhibit a disability. These crimes range from name calling and vandalizing, to murder. As a witness of such crimes, I support the establishment of more improved hate crimes laws. With the establishment of stricter laws, instances such as the murder of Matthew Sheppard, a student of the University of Wyoming, will be less likely to occur. Even though the laws would be a form of policing our thoughts, as some claim, policing our thoughts leads to policing of actions which will result in fewer crimes committed because people will learn, at some point that their actions have consequences.
Crimes that result because of hatred or prejudice against others has been a reality for thousands of years, beginning as far back as the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries (maybe even further), with the crimes committed against Native Americans by the Europeans and continuing on until today. Most of them stem off of religious and ethnic biases, especially those committed in the United States. According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), however, the term Hate Crimes did not become a part of vocabulary, specifically in the United States, until the 1980s, when emerging hate groups, like the Skinheads, began committing numerous bias-related crimes. The first recorded "hate crime" occurred in 1922. The Federal Bureau of Investigation encountered a rising Ku Klux Klan, white supremacist movement in Louisiana. Two people were kidnapped, tortured and murdered while thousands more received threats. Although the term has recently been defined, world history has, in a sense, been defined by such crimes. From the Romans’ persecution of Christians; the Nazis’ “final solution” for the Jews and the “ethnic cleansing” in Bosnia and genocide in Rwanda to the hate crimes being committed today against gays, blacks, Jews and any one else who doesn’t meet the attackers’ “approval”, these crimes have been, pretty much, the foundation of history.
Since the 1980’s, the United States public has become more aware of the problem of hate crimes, because of the media. Two specific tragedies initiated this heightened awareness. One was the shooting death (by a local KKK leader) of controversial radio talk show host Alan Berg in Denver, Colorado, in 1984 and two years later, the attack of three African-American men—one who died after being chased in front of a car —after their car broke down in a white New York City neighborhood called Howard Beach. These crimes (with help from the media) caused the problem of hate crimes to be taken more seriously on State and National levels. Hate Crimes have certainly received increased importance during the past decade as more crimes began being committed against certain types of groups or individuals and even though it is not fully defined the same way in all states- all definitions imply that the crimes were committed because the victim was “different”. Although many agree that hurting someone because of who they are is wrong, the current issue with hate crime legislation arises because of the ambiguity and differences in the definition of a hate crime.
People began using the term "hate crime" because it encompasses crimes committed against many different social and ethnic groups.The Hate Crime Statistics Act of 1990 defines hate crimes as “crimes that manifest evidence of prejudice based on race, religion, sexual orientation, or ethnicity, including where appropriate the crimes of murder, non-negligent manslaughter, forcible rape, aggravated assault, simple assault, intimidation, arson, and destruction, damage or vandalism of property.” However, not all states adopted this definition. For example, some include disabled people and gender while others do not. The vagueness of the definition allows for confusion between a bias-motivated crime and expression of a thought (which is protected under the U.S. Constitution). However, a major difference between a hate crime and any other crime is that a hate crime does not only affect the one or few people that were attacked, but it also affects the certain group the victims were a part of. A bias-motivated offense will cause an amount of discomfit among members of a targeted group, and a violent hate crime will just cause terror among the certain community because they will feel that “others are out to get them”. Apart from their psychological impacts, violent hate crimes can more violence in the sense that the attacked group might feel obligated to retaliate- making the problem even bigger. Therefore, criminal acts motivated by bias may carry far more weight than other types of criminal acts, so it is required that such crimes receive more severe punishment than a non-bias related hate crime.
Distinguishing between a bias and non-bias related hate crime does require policing of our thoughts, which is what critics of stronger hate crime legislation oppose, but it is essential because policing of thoughts allows deference of the certain actions that are truly what the laws are there for- to prevent ate-related thoughts from becoming an action. Legislation does not suppress free speech because the law is motivated by the desire to equalize a greater harm that is inflicted by bias-inspired thoughts, not by an attempt to suppress the expression of thoughts. In an attempt to minimize this issue, “many jurisdictions have established hate-crime units in their police departments”, and some regional task forces are spending their time investigating hate crimes. Some States have increased law enforcement training on hate crime and utilize school- and community-based prevention programs and many nonprofit organizations, such as the Anti-Defamation League, have also helped with prevention programs, services to victims, and civil lawsuits filed on behalf of victims against hate-crime perpetrators. But this is not enough.
In Attempt to limit the increasing amount of Hate Crimes committed, the United States government enacted certain laws are designed to punish the act, not the thought behind the act. The Supreme Court has ruled that while a defendant's bias cannot be used as evidence of guilt, it can be used to help establish a motive, which is an important aspect of any criminal case. For example, The Hate Crime Statistics Act of 1990, established by President Clinton, states that the Attorney General has to collect data of crimes committed which were “motivated by prejudice based on: race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability of the victim.” Another law called the Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007, requires that “anyone who commits a crime due to actual of perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability, can be sentenced to no more than ten years, unless kidnapping, attempted kidnapping, aggravated sexual abuse, attempted aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill is involved.” Additionally, the 1969 Federal Hate Crimes Law, which now includes the transgender community because of the Matthew Sheppard Act of 2009, punishes those who "willingly injures, intimidates or interferes with another person, or attempts to do so, by force because of the other person's race, color, religion or national origin" and because of his/her attempting to engage in one of six types of federally protected activities, such as attending school, patronizing a public place/facility, applying for employment, acting as a juror in a state court or voting” with imprisonment or payment of a fine. And The Violent Crime and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (which only applies to federal crimes) requires the United States Sentencing Commission to increase the penalties for hate crimes committed on the basis of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, or sex of any person. The FBI also gathers data for Hate Crime Statistics.
I propose that first; even more research to be done so that we can include all of what makes a hate crime a hate crime. The Passage of the Matthew Sheppard’s Act, which changed the 1969 Federal Hate Crimes Law to include the transgender community in its definition of a hate crime, is proof that only with research and action can we make improvements. Also, a problem arises from the enactment of laws that require gathering information to give statistics because, firstly, the statistics are probably inaccurate due to underreporting and secondly, information about the statistics is not readily available to the public, so many are not completely aware of what is going on around them. So, we need to make statistics available to everyone. It is difficult to tackle the problem of under reporting, so the government should find ways to accommodate that (by, for example, being more exact with the information they do have and distributing that information). The penalties for hate crimes are severe but it does not make sense that laws apply in some cases and not others. A hate crime is a hate crime, it should not be punished based on where it happened, or how it happened, or whom it happened to, rather it should be based on why it happened- and if the only way to do that is by monitoring our thoughts then that’s allowed. After all, our actions are based on our thoughts.

Thesis paragraph

New Thesis paragraph

Since the Hate Crime Statistics Act was established in 1990, the number of hate crimes reported has consistently ranged around 7,500 or more annually. According to a new study by the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights Education Fund, this approximates to nearly one every hour of every day. Therefore, it seems that for every hate crime that is occurring, there is another one being plotted. Some feel that hate crime legislation will inhibit free speech, while others believe that establishment of stronger hate crime legislation will, more importantly, decrease crime rate. Hate Crimes target people of different race, religion, gender, sexual orientation (most recently changed to also include the transgender community) and even those who exhibit a disability. These crimes range from name calling and vandalizing, to murder. As a witness of such crimes, I strongly attest to the establishment of more improved hate crimes laws. Such crimes can occur at anytime, and any place, such as college campuses. So, there is no reason why students who are there to gain an education should be fearful that such crimes could so easily be committed against them just because of who they are. It is more worthy to have our freedoms limited to increase the safety of our country, which is in the hands of our government.



Old thesis paragraph

According to a new study by the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights Education Fund , the number of hate crimes reported has consistently ranged around 7,500 or more annually approximating to nearly one every hour of every day, since the Hate Crime Statistics Act was established in 1990. By this statement, it seems that for every hate crime that is occurring, there is another one being plotted. Some feel that hate crime legislation will inhibit free speech, while others believe that establishment of stronger hate crime legislation will, more importantly, decrease crime rate. As a witness of such crimes that target people of different race, religion, gender, sexual orientation (most recently changed to also include the transgender community) or even those who exhibit a disability, and range from name calling and vandalizing, to murder, I strongly attest to the establishment of more improved hate crimes laws. These crimes can occur at anytime, and any place, such as college campuses. So, there is no reason why students who are there to an education should be fearful that such crimes can so easily be committed against them just because of who they are. It is more worth to have our freedoms limited to increase the safety of our country, which is in the hands of our government.

http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=3&hid=107&sid=08ea7c6a-08f0-48ed-9a8c-b13cebfd537e%40sessionmgr112&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=a9h&AN=43243860

http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=5&hid=103&sid=6ca50da4-2ea6-4261-921f-b2118fe39c1a%40sessionmgr111&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=a9h&AN=1837234

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/09/us/politics/09hate.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/23/us/politics/23hate.html


http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/10/13/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5381671.shtml

Hate Crimes on College Campuses

Almost everyday, in some form or another,someone is affected by the hate of others. College campuses seem to be the perfect place for such actions to take place because of the amount of diversity that exists in such places. Hate Crimes, whether targeting people of different race, religion, gender, sexual orientation (most recently changed to also include the transgender community) or even those who exhibit a disability, are notably motivated by hate. These crimes can take place anywhere, any place and at any time and can range from name calling and vandalizing, to murder. Its is the responsibility of our government to change that. Many feel that enforcement of hate crime legislation means policing of our thoughts and that those who commit the crimes are not people who would allow the government to change their minds but their actions can mostr definetley be deffered if they witness the consequences of such actions, and if policing thoughts means saving even one life, it's most definetley worth it.

Clive Thompson on the New Literature

Unsurprisingly, this article is speaking of the different opinions regarding the affect of “New Technology” on our reading and writing abilities. Professor Lunsford, as stated in the article, conducted an experiment which demonstrated that “technology isn’t killing our ability to write [rather] it’s reviving it”. Lunsford statement is one of the seemingly few that disagree with people like Sutherland who claims “technology is to blame. Facebook encourages narcissistic blabbering, video and PowerPoint have replaced carefully crafted essays, and texting has dehydrated language into bleak, bald, sad shorthand.” This new technology does have us writing more than the people before this time were. With constantly changing statuses, texting and iming, we constantly need to write as if we are talking to a certain audience (in a way) forcing us to observe our ways of writing and even improving it. Obviously, however, the writing we do is not always academic writing, so there is a difference, but only because of the formatting. When we’re writing, with this new technology, we’re not being forced to write in a certain way or think in a certain way, we can express ourselves in a way that we want, making us want to write more. Besides, we do always hear that practice makes perfect, so why not take advantage of our different options?

Discussion Questions

1. How much practice in writing is New Media really giving us?

2. Is it wrong to think that we are really getting practice, or is it leading us towards bad writing habits?

3. Does Clive Thompson bring something different than what other writers have said about the topic?

"R u really reading" response notes

Ariella Aghalarian

• Disabled students find it more comfortable to read and write online
• Some experts say that using web is still engaging students in the use of text and reading
• Some say that learning online reading skills will even help the children to learn to get jobs in the new digital age- making students read big books now is unrealistic- so they can get their reading from online
• Some even want TO TEST STUDENTS ON COMPUTER LITERACY
• Others argue that children don’t do much reading because they are spending most of their time doing things that involve minimal reading
• On the Internet, readers skate through cyberspace at will and, in effect, compose their own beginnings, middles and ends.
• Benefits of electronic media do not override the benefits of frequent reading (chairman of N.E.A)
• Children are clearly spending more time on the Internet. In a study of 2,032 representative 8- to 18-year-olds, the Kaiser Family Foundation found that nearly half used the Internet on a typical day in 2004, up from just under a quarter in 1999. The average time these children spent online on a typical day rose to one hour and 41 minutes in 2004, from 46 minutes in 1999.
• “Learning is not to be found on a printout,” David McCullough, the Pulitzer Prize-winning biographer, said in a commencement address at Boston College in May. “It’s not on call at the touch of the finger. Learning is acquired mainly from books, and most readily from great books.”
• Nadia’s mother says that even when they introduced their daughter to the site fanfiction.com and their daughter was reading, the reading had a lot of spelling and grammatical mistakes which could affect Nadia’s future spelling and correct grammar abilities
• “No ones ever said you should read more books to get into college”- Nadia
•
• Nicholas Carr sounded a similar note in “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” in the current issue of the Atlantic magazine. Warning that the Web was changing the way he and others think, he suggested that the effects of Internet reading extended beyond the falling test scores of adolescence. “What the Net seems to be doing is chipping away my capacity for concentration and contemplation,” he wrote, confessing that he now found it difficult to read long books.
• One early study showed that giving home Internet access to low-income students appeared to improve standardized reading test scores and school grades. “These were kids who would typically not be reading in their free time,” said Linda A. Jackson, a psychology professor at Michigan State who led the research. “Once they’re on the Internet, they’re reading.”
• Student Zachary believes book are only one way→ agree
• The kinds of skills Zachary has developed — locating information quickly and accurately, corroborating findings on multiple sites — may seem obvious to heavy Web users. But the skills can be cognitively demanding.
• Interpreting videos or pictures can be just as important as analyzing a book or a poem
• “The internet gives you what you need. Nothing more and nothing less”
• Reading online meets the needs of someone who might not meet the need of a fluent reader
• Nadia made it through one chapter of a book she was not so into before she went back into online reading- because she felt more comfortable there.

• As teenagers’ scores on standardized reading tests have declined or stagnated, some argue that the hours spent prowling the Internet are the enemy of reading — diminishing literacy, wrecking attention spans and destroying a precious common culture that exists only through the reading of books.

"R u really reading" response

Ariella Aghalarian

In today’s day and age technology plays a major role in our lives. Whether it is using the phone, listening to your ipod, or surfing the web, we now can’t even imagine our lives without these opportunities. Similar to the readings we have recently done, the article “Literacy Debate: Online, R U Really Reading?” by the New York Times, also speaks of the debate between Internet vs. print reading.
The article starts by speaking about a girl, Nadia’s, mother admitting that she’s even happy that her daughter is reading anything at all, even though it’s on the Internet because her daughter does not even open books. Many parents feel like Nadia’s mother since the popularization of the web. Those who support reading from the web, like Mr. Gioia of the N.E.A. claims that “What we are losing in this country and presumably around the world is the sustained, focused, linear attention developed by reading,” and he believes that is the cause of low scores on reading comprehension tests. Others say that the Internet inspires people to read and write. It engages students in reading and text and even makes students with disabilities comfortable with reading. Students are able to engage in cognitively demanding tasks such as locating information quickly and accurately, corroborating findings on multiple sites, which may seem like nothing to those of us who are familiar with the web but either way, it is a learning process. As the article says, analyzing pictures and videos are just the same as analyzing a book or a poem, I agree. Both tasks involve cognitive work and both abilities are essential nowadays especially when everything now is mostly dependant the web and current technology. Experts even said that they should start testing kids on computer reading as well because being familiar with such things are what will help children get jobs in the future.
Even though the debate seems to just be saying that either the internet doesn’t allow us to acquire the same knowledge as reading a book would or that the internet allows us to basically have a new way of learning, I agree with the chairman of the N.E.A who says that “benefits of electronic media do not override the benefits of frequent reading” however, I do believe that the benefits can be almost equal. I mean sure, it’s unsettling that Nadia can not get through the second book that her mother brought, but she did get through the first, because she liked it. I for sure know from experience that I will really only read a book in its entirety either if I have to or if I truly enjoy it. Who would read a book they didn’t like? Even when we are online, no matter what we are doing is learning. Reading facebook statuses we are able to subconsciously compaer grammar and see if what we are reading makes sense to then improve our own “writing”. Watching different movies others make on youtube we’re able to learn new ways of creativity aside from, for example, creative writing. For some, this type of learning is something they can do easily and enjoy. I do still love to just take that really well written romance novel and read it without interruption, but is refreshing to know that, for example, the web can make doing a research paper much easier and faster because “The internet gives you what you need, nothing more and nothing less.” If it can help students who are not fluent readers learn and if it could improve the lives of the less fortunate children, I don’t see why people have to make such a big fuss over it. We can’t blame only the Internet for declining test scores and we can’t expect our generation to not be addicted to the web or texting or cell phones because they are what we grew up knowing. So, it’s making us stupider, as Carr implies, it actually may even be making us smarter, just in different ways than is expected. With everything “new” there are always negatives and positives- we just have learn to worth with both.

"New Media and the Slow Death of the Written Word" essay

Technology in the 21st century has greatly influenced the ways in which we work and communicate in our everyday lives. Whether it is seen by the increase in use of computers or the decline of the interestingness of the newspaper, we have now entered an era where the “New Media” has prevailed and for those who need to adapt to this change, there are rules that can be adhered to for a better transition into this computer-ruled time period. In “New Media and the Slow Death of the Written Word”, we see that the author advocates old text and even admits to wanting to advocate “print on paper rather than computers” at first but then eventually realized that these old texts had some issues that needed to be resolved. So, even though he still loves the old text, he realized that the New Media had a new way of communicating with his audience, as Birkert and Postman, opponents who believed that New Media would be taking away appreciation of old text, had to realize. The New Media has made it possible to not only enhance but also appreciate old texts. To allow this connection to even happen, Mark Zeltner developed ten basic rules, using what he learned through experience, to serve as a guide for students learning to write for the new-media.
The first rule is to “keep it tight, short paragraphs, simple active sentences, treat every word as a rare and valuable jewel.” Basically, when writing on, for example a website, one needs to stay short and to the point as to not lose the attention span of the readers. The second rule is to “break your text into appropriate "chunks" for reading, [and] be aware of content when deciding between click or scroll” make it so that it’s easy for your reader to keep up with what your trying to say so that they don’t lose interest (because of our low attention span) when they constantly have to click to get somewhere. This rule seems to go hand in hand with the first one. If we stay short and to the point, there would be no need to watch how much the person has to click or scroll because everything should be right there in front of them. Therefore, I think this rule can just be combined with the first one and not have to be its own rule. The third rule is to “think in modules, preplan possible paths for your reader, and insure that important information is difficult or impossible to miss”. This is a very important rule because, again going with the short attention span idea, many readers just want to know what they need to know and that’s it. So, for example, important information that an author wants known should be placed at the top of the piece of writing so when readers are just skimming the articles, as many may do, the information that is important should not be missed because it’s the first thing read. The fourth rule is to use images mostly to convey messages that you cannot convey with words and use thumbnails to link to higher resolution images. There are definitely times when “pictures speak louder than words”, for example, one could never fully understanding the intensity of that picture from the holocaust with the skinny people in striped uniforms laying on top each other (see what I mean?) without seeing the picture.
The fifth rule is to use audio clips to add to the reader’s and experience, not to distract them. We all know that if we hear our favorite song, or if we hear a voice coming from the page we just clicked on, w will stay on the page long enough to see what it’s about, so why not use it to get your work noticed, or even just to add to your work (like adding Martin Luther King Jr.’s speech to the paper your writing about the civil rights movement). The sixth rule, which can very well be combined with the fifth, states that digital files should be kept short. I both agree and disagree in the sense that they should be short as to not lose the attention of the audience, but it should also be long enough to include all that it should to be considered as enough supporting evidence. The seventh rule states “All footnotes should be linked back to a bibliography page and preferably anchored to the specific text you are referencing. Don't entice your reader to abandon you for greener pastures (see the problems with hyperlinks but please come back). Inform them and then entice them back on the main road.” As part of the “audience” I know that I am often a wanderer. If there is something interesting that comes up as I am navigating away from the page, it is likely that I will not return to the page again (unless I’m forced to because it is school related). For example, If I am reading an excerpt about different techniques used in the news, and then I see a link to an interesting article about my favorite TV show, I am more likely to go read more articles like that rather than keep reading some boring article. The eighth rule is saying the same thing as the seventh rule, using the word hyperlinks instead of footnotes, so the repetition is unnecessary. Speaking of hyper linking, rule number nine says that if we must use them, they should be used to hyperlink to sidebars or “supporting information of your own creation to supplement your document.” For example “let's say you are writing about the architecture of New State University. You might create a sidebar about historic campus buildings that no longer exist. What happened to them? Why were they torn down or how where they destroyed. What building or recognizable campus landmark took their place? You might also include a short sidebar on each man or woman that had a building named after them. Why was the building named after this individual? What was their connection to the campus?” just adding to what’s there. The writer should also have many different ways to get back to the main article so that the reader is less likely to go off track (as was demonstrated in the news example). Finally, rule number ten is to add mood or meaning to you piece of work. The audience will more likely be enthused by a piece of work that they can relate to or stands out. For example, when we first made our blogs, I was more interested in seeing what was done to those with more on their page than those who just put their name and birthday on the blog. This rule seems to bring it all together because, after all, isn’t a large audience what the “New Media” is after?
Zeltner’s rules prove Postman and Birkert wrong by showing that not only is the written word still a vital part of our lives but that the New Media is helping it be that way. In the 21st century, we can no longer depend on words alone to get messages across, so the combination of the New Media and the written word is the way to go. Many of these rules may seem obvious when read here, but when put into action; they are rules that are much forgotten. Sticking to these guidelines and eventually branching off of them (because none of these rules are set in stone) can eventually advance the use of the written word even more. The New Media is nothing to be threatened by; rather it is something to be grateful for, as Zeltner is trying to get across.

Hate Crimes on College Campuses

Throughout American History there have been numerous groups of people affected by hate. As an expression of this hate, Hate Crimes are committed. Hate Crimes, whether targeting people of different race, religion, gender, sexual orientation or even those who exhibit a disability, are notably motivated by hate. These crimes can take place anywhere, any place and at any time and can range from name calling and vandalizing, to murder. Although there are laws such as the Campus Hate Crimes Right to Know Act of 1997 and The Hate Crimes Statistic Act of 1990 restricting these hate crimes, our laws need to become stricter and penalties more severe in order to ensure a safer and more comfortable lifestyle for all people, especially those on college campuses.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_crime_laws_in_the_United_States


http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_hat3.htm


http://findarticles.com/p/search/?qt=%22Hate+Crime+Solutions%22

Research paper ideas

All around the world and throughout American History there have been all different types of people including: people of different race, religion, gender, sexual orientation and much more. However, even though we have been living in a country that allows freedoms such as freedom of speech and religion, these “different” people are still severely discriminated against by those who do not agree with their lifestyle choices. Hate Crimes are committed by their adversary who will commit crimes ranging from simple name calling and vandalizing to murder. Although there are laws restricting these hate crimes, our laws need to become stricter in order to ensure a safer and more comfortable lifestyle for all people, especially those on college campuses.

Homelessness seems to have become a growing issue around America. Homelessness can be thought of as without a “permanent, safe, decent, affordable place to live” and is brought on by economic depression, rise of house prices and lowered wages at jobs. Although it may be deemed as difficult, there are changes that can be made, such as creating new housing resources and better paying jobs to end homelessness in America.

Domestic abuse, which consists of one person in a relationship exhibiting certain behaviors to get and maintain control over the other, is an issue that is often overlooked. Everyone can be a victim of domestic abuse. Whether the victim is a teen, elderly, disabled, a woman or even a man, every type of person can experience it. Abuse is something no one should or could endure and to stop it more people have to be aware of this issue and the laws about it have to be more strictly enforced, or this issue will never fully be resolved.

Ariella Aghalarian

The articles “Is Google Making Us Stupid” and “The Internet Is No Substitute for the Dying Newspaper Industry” both have opposite views about how the internet, and technology in general, affects not only us, but the world around us today. The first article, about Google talks about how the internet has made it more difficult to, basically, live without the web, and the other article talks about how the internet has nothing to do with the decrease of newspaper use, for example.
One of the main points in “Is Google Making Us Stupid” is that the internet has taken away our ability to do the things we would do in ease during the pre-technology era such as: reading actual texts (books, etc.) and actually being able to find something without having to use a search engine. “It’s becoming our map and our clock, our printing press and our typewriter, our calculator and our telephone, and our radio and TV.” I can’t even think of a time where, for example, I needed directions to some place and my first instinct was to ask for directions instead of going to MapQuest, and don’t we always check online first if we missed an episode of our favorite shows? I know I do. It’s become like the internet is our fist choice to find things because it’s faster and easier and, in my opinion, our generation is one that has become less patient than the ones before us and we want everything available to us- fast. It has, as mentioned, made it harder for us, as students, to focus when reading actual text (as I have even experienced while doing this homework) because the usual “internet text” is shorter and easier- we wouldn’t want that to change again. Often times, when doing work on the computer, which in recent years it is as if there is no other way to function, there a myriad of websites we are able to visit in the process that makes us lose track of what were doing and aids procrastination. Almost everything we do involves technology and even our learning has been affected. No more do we need to actually know our grammar rules and how to spell –spell check can do that for us. No more dictionaries- we have dictionary.com and know more books needed to find things because everything lives in Google. Now there’s no need to be smarter, the computer will be smart for us. I’ve noticed that I cannot go one day without having an internet- connected computer available because almost everything I am required to do – whether academically or socially, is involved with the computer. Quite frankly, I do feel much stupider because of the technology around us. My math skills are non-existent without a calculator, my essays would be full of grammatical errors if it weren’t for Google to tell me the rules and where do you think I turn to when I just want a summary of the reading because I’m too lazy to read the whole book? Google. I would be much smarter as the people that lived pre- technology were. “As we come to rely on computers to mediate our understanding of the world, it is our own intelligence that flattens into artificial intelligence” because we don’t need to push ourselves to the extra step anymore- our intelligence is based (mostly) on how much we choose the old-fashioned methods versus the new.

In “The Internet Is No Substitute for the Dying Newspaper Industry” the author seems to try and emphasize that the blame of the decline in newspapers is not because of the internet but because of the people and our “loss of civic and public responsibility on the part of much of our entrepreneurial class and the intellectual poverty of our post-literate world, a world where information is conveyed primarily through rapidly moving images rather than print.” It seems to be blaming the decline more on our tendency to look on the news channel rather than on the newspaper. This, in my opinion is not true, because there are many people that use both sources to find out more information. The internet too. If it wasn’t for the bolded headlines on AOL for example, I would not even be what was going on in politics around me today. It may be true that “Those who rely on the Internet gravitate to sites that reinforce their beliefs” but if it wasn’t for the newspaper, many of the pe-interet era would not be able to access this information and even though we may gravitate to one side- at least we’re somewhat informed enough to do so. Neither the internet nor the newspaper could take the place of the other because we live in a time were there are many with different capabilities and one cannot be deprived. The internet is not destroying the newspaper- it is helping it. The same goes the other way around.

Ariella Aghalarian

There are many articles on “The Onion” that caught my attention; however, the two most amusing to me had to do with politics. The first one was titled “DHS Sets Security Alert Level to Green for 8 Seconds” and the second one was “Congress Deadlocked Over How to Not Provide Health Care.” The first one, I find funny because it’s implying the sudden alert we feel as a country recently. That we take everything so seriously and feel so unsafe after events such as September 11th occurred. They are mocking the idea that our government takes things so seriously and prefer to be on the “safe side” by making sure we are always prepared if such events were to happen again. They are achieving their goal by implying that such a thing as our country not being threatened by terrorism can never happen for long and; therefore, its funny that something like that would happen for even as long as eight seconds because, right now, every little thing can be assumed as an act of terrorism. With the other article, it is obvious that they are mocking the current health care issue and how our government is not providing us with proper health care. The title itself tells you how they are showing that it is as if our government looks for reasons not to give health care. This is funny because right now it does seem that way when no one understands the reasoning behind our government’s actions or issues. The writers took the big concept of not being provided health care and made it as if the government is deliberately doing it, which achieves the piece’s purpose because many people may feel that way.

6- year old Hasidic boy convinces Anti-Semitic extremist his views are wrong.

By Ariella Aghalarian
September, 2009

New York- On Friday, September 25, 2009, an extremist fundamentalist church from Topeka, Kansas, called The Westboro Baptist Church, and led by Rev. Fred Phelps and composed largely of his family members, staged an Anti- Semitic protest in various places in Great Neck. They planned these protests without predicting that 6- year old Menachem- Mendel Lieberman would change there minds.

“I just showed them that Jewish people are good” said Menachem- Mendel when asked how he did it. He was not able to elaborate after emphasizing that “people will be good if you are good”. Apparently, the young boy helped Rev. Phelps after he tripped over one of his “GOD HATES JEWS, FAGS AND AMERICA” signs. “It was like I had an epiphany that I was wrong all this time” said Phelps while his arm was around Menachem’s shoulder. Phelps has even gone far enough to change their automated telephone greeting featuring a pleasant, Southern-accented female voice who advises if you are a “Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim, or “C”-rejecting Jew,” that “God hates you all,” and recommends visiting the church’s website where more information is available to the same woman saying “All types of people out there, g-d loves you all, visit our website to learn more.” “Who knew a little boy could do so much,” witnesses proclaimed.

(Some information taken from the Jewish World website)

Fred Phelps, the founder of the Westboro Baptist Church hate group, based in Topeka, KS. Says he’s “so happy we can finally be peaceful protesters.”


Menachem- Mendel Lieberman of Great Neck is excited that he “changed the world”

Personal story turned news article

Who would have ever thought that writing about “what defines me” would be so difficult. Who am I? Honestly, I don’t know. I know that I’m a modern orthodox, Jewish, Persian girl that lives in Great Neck. I know who and what others think. How they define me. I’m “the triplet”, “the studyhollic”, “smiley”. But that’s what I am, not who I am. Sure, I study a lot, just to do well in school to get somewhere in life. Sure, I’m a triplet, but it’s not something I made myself. And I may smile a lot, but doesn’t everyone “put on a face” in front of others? I’m not saying that I don’t have things to smile about, but really, can someone truly be happy all the time? I walk down the streets and see people looking at me. But they don’t see… me. They see a girl that limps, and tries to do well in school to “make up for it”. They don’t realize that this girl could not care less to “make up” for anything and I am not embarrassed of anything. I work to do well in school because I want to. I’ve been doing karate for the past five years not because I want to prove myself. I do it because I love it. I do it because it’s the only place that I’m not limited because of what I can’t do; rather, I am pushed to do more than what I can. Just because I looked helpless doesn’t mean that I would let those boys in middle school just push me to the lockers, call me a “handicapped Jew” and get away with it.
I was in the eighth grade, just walking down the hall to get to class, when they spotted me. Those two boys that thought everyone was scared of them thought they can do and say whatever they want and not be reprimanded for it. Walking passed them, my eyes averted as to not have to meet theirs. I was not scared of them, and did not intend to show it, but apparently they were searching for vulnerability and found it.
I’ll never forget the feeling of Brandon’s big, heavy hands on my shoulder as he was shoving my body into the blue metal lockers that stood next to the red brick walls. I’ll never forget the sound of his voice, full of hatred, as he hissed out “get out of my way, you handicapped Jew”.
As I walked on and turned back in disbelief of what had just happened, I realized that I was not angry enough at him at that moment to retaliate. Instead, I felt bad for him. I knew that no person would do what he did if they were not in need of attention. But, as moments went on and I realized how much pain my shoulder was actually in, I realized that letting him be reprimanded for what he did might actually end up helping him. After [English] class, I walked up to my teacher, who was actually the dean of the school at the time, and told him what had happened. He asked me to tell who the boys were and I told him I knew one of them, but not the other. Luckily, he knew exactly the two boys I was talking about. They “were partners in crime.”
He then explained to me that these were the two most troublemakers in the school and that they needed just one more reason to be sent where they needed to go. I was the reason. A meeting was arranged between the boys, their parents and school officials (I opted to stay out of it- I didn’t need the drama). Within three days I got news that both boys were sent to a boarding school and were not allowed in the school district again for quite sometime. The fact that they had actually caused the dislocation of my left shoulder was just another “push “.
He’s gone now. He’s been gone. But the fact that he actually lives just four houses down from me and I am forced to remember that day every time I pass by does not help. At least I was able to “prove” one thing that actually needed proving.



Great Neck Student Fights Back

NEW YORK- Tuesday morning, at approximately 10:30 A.M., Great Neck North High School student, Ariella Aghalarian, was shoved into the lockers of the school’s hallways by a fellow male classmate, who is to remain nameless for legal reasons.

“He called me a handicapped Jew as he was pushing me”, Ms. Aghalarian told reporters when asked about specifics on how it happened. “I was not going to let them get away with it because if they did it to me, they would do it to a lot of other people too.”

Apparently, there was more than one boy involved even though only one of them came in contact with the student. School officials began working with Ms. Aghalarian, the male classmates and their parents to resolve the issue. “It was not the first time that these boys committed such acts, nor would it have been the last” said School Dean and Aghalarian’s English teacher Mr. Ron Levine. Levine was the first school official to be informed of what has happened.

Ms. Aghalarian was experiencing shoulder pains because of the impact with the lockers. That was taken into consideration as officials decided it was best for the boys to be sent to a boarding school that would be more efficient for them. These boys were found to not just be bullies but were associated with drugs and alcohol and were sent to a facility that would help them with these issues at well. Although Aghalarian has opted not to come in direct contact with the young men, they have sent her a note of apology and realization of their actions. There is no indication of the school’s plans on ensuring the rarity of these events, but they “are sure that things will change”, according to Levine.

Ariella Aghalarian

Michael Skube starts his article by implying that bloggers are opinionated people that use writing on the internet as a venting method. That blogging is the new way for people to write for free (because in the past people would only write if they were getting paid). Bloggers are like reporters without obligations. They get o write about whatever they want; whenever they want about whomever they want with any restrictions (by editors and publishers for example). Blogging is like a check on the media, according to Moulitsas, because with the comments that people are able to make, reporters know they have to stay fairly honest in order to not get bashed by the public’s (bloggers’) opinion. Blogging is like the new journalism. It’s journalism that makes a difference rather than just stating facts, as Skube feels many bloggers believe. Blogging, according to Skube’s article, has much to do with politics. It’s a form of journalism that bloggers are using because they want to make a difference with their writings and, he shows, that they want to use blogging to sway opinions to a more democratic view where debate and public controversy will push the country to where it needs to be because without the debated there would be no lead towards knowing what has to be done. Skube shows that he believes that blogging has become a new form of reporting, but he does not believe that blogging is real journalism.
In Andrew Sullivan’s piece entitled “The Blogging Revolution”, Sullivan emphasized that this use of technology to expose and give opinions on original fiction, or news in general, (otherwise referred to as blogging) is changing everything. It’s changing how the media works and journalism in general. Just as Skube implies it is used as a check on the media, so does Sullivan. Sullivan also agrees with Skube in that blogging is a way of writing what you want for free and without restrictions allowing bloggers to be much more extreme. One big difference; however, between Sullivan and Skube’s views on blogging is that Sullivan views it as a form of relatable reporting while Skube seems to view it as a form of reporting that includes brainwashing. Skube seems to think that that bloggers all try to sway the public away from republican views (“stay away from right-wing..”) and “democratize” everyone. Instead of viewing it as people just putting their opinions out there, he seems to see it just as uncensored journalism which is wrong. Blogging is simply a way to get our feelings across about different issues. It allows people to get their voices out when they feel they can’t do it in person. It allows for the idea that America has the freedom of speech to actually be true. Sure, people are commenting on topics they might not know so much about, but if it weren’t for these people, how would we ever know what’s true and what’s not? Sure, blogging and technology in general doesn’t put restrictions on anything, but isn’t there enough censorship everywhere else? And, blogging is one form of technology that is changing everything, but if it wasn’t for change, we would not have gotten as far as we have today, because, in the end, these bloggers are the one’s we trust more than the news reporters as Sullivan implies, because we can relate to them. If there wasn’t something to relate to when it came to being involved in what affects our lives, who knows what we would let happen.

Prove What?

Ariella Aghalarian
English 110
Professor Schwartz
Who am I?

Who would have ever thought that writing about “what defines me” would be so difficult. Who am I? Honestly, I don’t know. I know that I’m a modern orthodox, Jewish, Persian girl that lives in Great Neck. I know who and what others think. How they define me. I’m “the triplet”, “the studyhollic”, “smiley”. But that’s what I am, not who I am. Sure, I study a lot, just to do well in school to get somewhere in life. Sure, I’m a triplet, but it’s not something I made myself. And I may smile a lot, but doesn’t everyone “put on a face” in front of others? I’m not saying that I don’t have things to smile about, but really, can someone truly be happy all the time? I walk down the streets and see people looking at me. But they don’t see… me. They see a girl that limps, and tries to do well in school to “make up for it”. They don’t realize that this girl could not care less to “make up” for anything and I am not embarrassed of anything. I work to do well in school because I want to. I’ve been doing karate for the past five years not because I want to prove myself. I do it because I love it. I do it because it’s the only place that I’m not limited because of what I can’t do; rather, I am pushed to do more than what I can. Just because I looked helpless doesn’t mean that I would let those boys in middle school just push me to the lockers, call me a “handicapped Jew” and get away with it.
I was in the eighth grade, just walking down the hall to get to class, when they spotted me. Those two boys that thought everyone was scared of them thought they can do and say whatever they want and not be reprimanded for it. Walking passed them, my eyes averted as to not have to meet theirs. I was not scared of them, and did not intend to show it, but apparently they were searching for vulnerability and found it.
I’ll never forget the feeling of Brandon’s big, heavy hands on my shoulder as he was shoving my body into the blue metal lockers that stood next to the red brick walls. I’ll never forget the sound of his voice, full of hatred, as he hissed out “get out of my way, you handicapped Jew”.
As I walked on and turned back in disbelief of what had just happened, I realized that I was not angry enough at him at that moment to retaliate. Instead, I felt bad for him. I knew that no person would do what he did if they were not in need of attention. But, as moments went on and I realized how much pain my shoulder was actually in, I realized that letting him be reprimanded for what he did might actually end up helping him. After [English] class, I walked up to my teacher, who was actually the dean of the school at the time, and told him what had happened. He asked me to tell who the boys were and I told him I knew one of them, but not the other. Luckily, he knew exactly the two boys I was talking about. They “were partners in crime.”
He then explained to me that these were the two most troublemakers in the school and that they needed just one more reason to be sent where they needed to go. I was the reason. A meeting was arranged between the boys, their parents and school officials (I opted to stay out of it- I didn’t need the drama). Within three days I got news that both boys were sent to a boarding school and were not allowed in the school district again for quite sometime. The fact that they had actually caused the dislocation of my left shoulder was just another “push “.
He’s gone now. He’s been gone. But the fact that he actually lives just four houses down from me and I am forced to remember that day every time I pass by does not help. At least I was able to “prove” one thing that actually needed proving.