@Much2learn This may not be simple vandalism. In a number of jurisdictions (including the one where I practice law), vandalism of a church or other place of worship is a separate, more serious charge, regardless of the amount of damage. Again, I didn’t say they should be convicted of a hate crime – but I absolutely disagree w/ a number of your assertions regarding this, particularly that there is some fundamental difference between college kids defacing a church w/ a swastika, and other people defacing a church w/ a swastika.
“If they really hate Jews or Muslims, why would they spray paint a chapel instead of a Synagogue or Mosque?”
I think Northwestern is going to take the stance that anti-Jewish, anti-Muslim, anti-gay (etc) graffiti is unacceptable in ANY public space on campus, whether it’s the student center, the library, the chapel (which is non-denominational), Hillel, Sheil (the Catholic Center), or wherever the Muslim student association assembles (I don’t know where that is). I suspect their reaction would be exactly the same if this happened at the student center or the library; the chapel is just particularly galling because it’s a) a lovely space and b) really supposed to be a place of ecumenical brotherhood.
I’ll admit to being uncomfortable with “hate crime” laws that enhance punishment based on a person’s speech (or even unspoken motives). In this particular case, I don’t think it matters too much–these guys could easily be expelled for the parts of their vandalism that didn’t target anybody.
Hunt, I am then interested in your take on the synagogue vandalism I linked to upthread. Would it be your contention that that could “qualify” as a hate crime not because of the words or actions themselves, but the other evidence that the perpetrator had a cache of weapons and thus might become a physical danger? Or are you just uncomfortable with the concept of hate crimes? Is Illinois a particularly “liberal” or outlier state compared to others on this dimension?
I’ve always felt that hate could be determined to be the motive in a crime but not a crime itself. We know who desecrated the Church so answering the question why is primarily germane to determining the motive. The risk we run is ruling something a hate crime and having it carry it’s own criminal offense is that someone has to decide what will be considered a “hate” crime. That works well until something you disagree or HAD disagreed with becomes a sensitive issue and your feelings are now considered “hate”. I can see how the motive might be considered in the sentencing faze of the trial, however, whether someone broke in and ransacked a store because they needed to feed their family or because the owner was…name your tag. The braking and entering and the theft was the crime and their reason was the motive. I might be more sympathetic to the person braking into the store to get food for a hungry family than someone who disliked the race, religion or ethnicity of the store owner. However, what if someone had in the past said he dislike the store owners religion but the real reason he robbed it was because of his hungry family? Under hate crime laws he could be prosecuted both as thief and a hater even though his attitudes had nothing to do with the crime.
I’m generally uncomfortable with trying to read the mind of a perpetrator to see if his reason for committing the crime was hate–I’m just not sure we’re good enough at doing that, and I suspect that we might be more likely to find hate as the motivator if the accused is a member of an unfavored group. But hate crimes are pretty hard to prove, so there is some balance. I get more concerned, though, when there is a speech element, as there is in this case. If these students had written a letter to the school paper expressing their disdain, even hatred, for black people, etc., then it would be wrong to punish them at all. Hate speech is not a crime; indeed, it is protected speech. So it makes me uncomfortable to punish a crime more severely because it includes speech whose content we dislike. I also agree with what @lvvcsf said about this above–I’m worried about who gets to define what hate speech is.
Note: a private college can punish hate speech if it wants to. I don’t think it should, though.
If I’ve followed the bread crumbs correctly…this is definitely NOT a hate crime.
Again, I agree what the boys did is a crime, but they don’t believe what they wrote on the walls.
@Hunt Motivation is important for the criminal charges.
@CaliCash already delineated the definition of a hate crime upthread:
Here we have the odd situation in which the crime includes a form of speech. That makes it more difficult.
Regardless of the criminal charges, and regardless of the content of the graffiti, NU has the right to suspend / expel them based on “pure vandalism” alone, right? I do agree that viscerally, I have a stronger reaction to expelling them because of the content than I would if some overenthusiastic drunk frat boy painted “Go Cats!” on the side of the library. Maybe I’m wrong for having that visceral reaction.
So borrowing a page from Hunt’s “thought experiments” - Northwestern has a rock in a central location on campus where every night, students or student groups paint whatever-they-want and guard it till the morning. The typical content is promoting a student organization or event, though sometimes individuals will paint the Rock for loved ones. If you dig down 30 years ago, you’ll see where my then-boyfriend painted our initials with a heart, awwwwww 
It’s sort of “gentleman’s agreement” that what is on the Rock is not controversial or vulgar - it’s mostly promoting clubs or events, though I wouldn’t be surprised to see “NU Students for Bernie” or some such.
Anyway. If they had painted those things on the Rock, what would / should be the reaction? It’s not vandalism as the Rock is intended to be painted. Does the university have a right, calling, obligation to ensure that there is not objectionable content, and how would that be defined? I suppose that’s the million dollar question.
Here’s a thought experiment: in Townsville, gluing posters to bus shelters is a misdemeanor. Joe glues an ad for a rock concert on a bus shelter, and Bill posts a KKK poster denouncing blacks as inferior. Do you think Bill should be punished more severely than Joe? I think this case is easier to consider, since it doesn’t involve something as emotionally charged as vandalizing a church.
This Kafker kid won not one, but THREE prizes at graduation from his private boarding school.
This is the most impressive, if we’re looking for the “Most Ironic” award ever given out at graduation. (Although Owen Labrie still takes the cake.)
https://www.mxschool.edu/sites/default/files/uploads/2015PrizeDay.pdf
This stuff never ceases to amaze me–how incredibly STUPID very smart kids can be. Maybe his attorneys will mount a successful “undeveloped prefrontal cortex defense.”
There is nothing difficult about this except whether to charge the bias enhancement. Many crimes include a form of speech – threats, extortion, blackmail, perjury are four that come to mind. The law is clear that none of those are protected speech but they are still speech. Perjury, for example, is only a crime because it is a lie told 1) under oath and 2) on a material issue. If it’s a lie told under oath but it’s not material, it’s not perjury. The criminal law makes these kinds of distinctions all the time, and it’s not odd.
As to motive – motive is not typically an element of a crime. Intent is an element. Juries like to hear about motive, but it’s not typically an element. It IS part of a bias enhancement. But here, these men vandalized a church. The damage was enough to be a felony. It is not a minor crime. They are on video. The motive for THAT crime is irrelevant. It doesn’t matter if they hate certain groups, love them, are a member of them, whatever.
@Hunt. I Agree with almost everything you said. I agree that a private college is not bound by the first Amendment. I used to think they could therefore punish hate speech but some legal articles I have read convinced me that if those institutions claim they fully respect free speech they may be contractually bound to not punish it. It will depend on the pronouncement they have made with regards to the topic.
But a public college can’t punish speech or punish on a content basis for protected speech. And contrary to what many think hate speech that is not a threat Is not punishable. For example “Jews are bad people I hate them” is constitutionally protected.
“I’m going to harm Jews who come to clas tomorrow because they are bad people” is not. ( Again I’m Jewish so using this as the example). Moreover public universities CANNOT make protected speech punishable by having a “Code of Conduct” that forbids certain kinds of speech. If it’s protected speech they can’t make rules that infringe on it. I can’t tell you how many people I know that don’t understand this last point.
Because a campus code of conduct does not pre-empt Federal law.
What breadcrumbs are you following? The one kid’s father is a judge in MA. Ok, now what? Would a court in Illinois give a darn?
@maya54, I think I agree with all of that. I think a lot of private colleges have codes of conduct which would explicitly allow them to punish certain kinds of speech, and I think they would likely prevail in a legal challenge to that. This would not (or should not, at least) work for a public university.
huh. …
The difference between how a public and private college can treat Ist amendment issues is interesting and puzzling.
Does the same difference apply to public and private work companies?
Yes, but it is more complicated, because there can be some restrictions on speech in the workplace, even in a public job. But yes, private employers are more free to punish speech they don’t like than are public employers. A way to remember this is to remember that the First Amendment protects citizens against government action, not against action by private entities.
Why puzzling? First Amendment protects us against GOVERNMENT restrictions of speech, assembly, etc. A lot of people seem to forget that.