Discussion questions

1.We have briefly discussed the killing of Ahmaud Arbery in class. It took almost exactly two years for a federal jury to convict Arbery’s killers. However, as this DOJ press release notes, “All three defendants were previously convicted in a separate state trial on felony murder charges and other offenses.” Notably, none of these “other offenses” included hate crimes. This can be attributed to the fact that Georgia passed its state hate crime bill shortly after the three men were charged at the state level. 

Considering all this, and what we recently learned about prosecuting hate crimes at the federal versus state level, do you see value in these federal hate crimes convictions? More broadly, do you agree that most hate crimes should be prosecuted at the state level? Why or why not? Put differently, if Georgia’s hate crimes law had existed when the men were charged, do you think there would be any difference between them being tried at the state level vs. the federal level? Consider giving an example of a case (real or not) where you think it is important for the federal government to intervene. Share any links that help elucidate your arguments (e.g., I’d share this article if I was discussing Dylan Roof). As always, it is not necessary for you to explicitly address all questions in this activity as long as it’s clear that you’ve thoughtfully engaged with the core themes.

c

2.Hate crime laws are divisive. People have differences of opinion as to what purpose they should serve and beyond that, whether they are necessary at all. Visit this room for the debate section of The New York Times. Although these short articles were written over a decade ago (the debates during that time were also explored here), the arguments advanced are still relevant today – an important reminder that even though public understanding of hate crimes is improving, there is still much work to be done.

Select at least two of the mini articles (i.e., Dobbs, Henderson, Durkin, Jacobs, Anders, Gorenberg) to review. For each one, explain what you think is the author’s most compelling argument (even if you may not agree with their position). Be sure to also share which article you find more/most persuasive. If you’re not persuaded by either, feel free to visit more – there are six, which means many opportunities to learn from more perspectives!

c

3.We think a lot about the power of narratives in this class. Both media and data are used to construct hate crime stories — without them, it would be much harder to conceptualize and define hate crimes. Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie’s TED Talk, although not explicitly about hate crime, adds a unique perspective to what we’re studying.