Debating the Legal Category of Hate Crime - NYTimes.com In this lesson, in the context of the Dharun Ravi case, students debate whether or hate crime laws protect against intimidation and bigotry or whether they are unnecessary and unfair. It's possible to strike deep at one's core without a bullet or a knife blade. We cannot outlaw hate, but laws shape attitudes. Laws must punish the crime, not objectionable beliefs. Hate should be recognized and opposed in all its forms. Racism and homophobia cannot be solved by longer prison sentences. Instruct students to choose one of the quotes above and do a free-write in response, perhaps writing about related personal experiences or beliefs, explaining why they agree or disagree with the statement or writing what interests or confuses them about the statement. After a few minutes, inform the class that all of the quotations were taken from opinion pieces in a New York Times feature on hate crimes. Briefly introduce students to what hate crimes are and how they affect prosecution and sentencing. Discuss briefly: Have they heard about hate crimes before? What kinds of crimes are classified as hate crimes? Next, tell students that the opinion pieces the quotes on the board were taken from represent different opinions about whether or not crimes should be treated differently when hate is involved. Some of the experts argue that we need to prosecute crimes that involve hate more severely in order to protect against intimidation and bigotry while others argue that punishing hate crimes differently than other crimes is unnecessary and unfair. Can they tell which is which? Ask the class which of the quotations they think are taken from pieces that support the need for a separate criminal category for hate crimes and which are from pieces that argue against prosecuting hate crimes differently from other crimes. Then identify the quotations (1, 2 and 4 support, while 3 and 5 oppose), and tell them they will read the pieces in their entirety now. The trial of the Rutgers student Dharun Ravi, who used a webcam to spy on his roommate Tyler Clementi with another man before Clementi committed suicide, has raised questions about whether Ravi's actions were a hate crime or simple boorishness. Read the entire feature with your class, using the questions below. What are the arguments for hate crimes legislation? To you, which of these arguments are the strongest and which are the weakest? Which do you agree and disagree with? What are the arguments against hate crimes legislation? Which of these arguments are the strongest? What is brought up in these pieces that you had not thought about before? Does this make you think differently about the issue? What is not discussed in these pieces that you think might be pertinent to the debate? How, if at all, has reading these pieces influenced how you think about hate crimes? Has your own opinion changed or been strengthened? Put students in pairs, and assign half of the pairs the position of being supportive of punishing hate crimes more severely and half of the pairs the position of opposing more severe punishment for hate crimes. Let students know that once they have researched their position, they will be presenting their argument to another pair that is assigned to the opposing side. Give each pair the Debatable Issues handout to track facts and arguments, and then lead them through the six steps of structured academic controversy. In Step 1, Identifying the Arguments, each pair should gather news coverage and analysis. Good starting points are the Room For Debate feature they read, the Times Topics page on hate crimes, the article "Jury Finds Spying in Rutgers Dorm Was a Hate Crime" and other coverage of the Dharun Ravi trial and Emily Bazelon's Op-Ed about hate crimes. They should also look at a few articles on other hate crime cases, like the Week in Review article "Hate Laws Don't Matter - Except When They Do," the Bob Herbert column "Staring at the Hatred" and the 1988 news report about hate-crimes legislation "Congress Bill on Hate and Violent Acts Gains." Using these and other resources, pairs identify what hate crimes are, their legal and judicial history and the arguments for and against this legal category, and then move on to Step 2 and so on; they debrief the activity in the sixth and final step. Or, to shift the focus, students might instead develop arguments about another issue raised by the Dharun Ravi case, like sentencing of young offenders or bullying and cyberbullying. Civics 3. Understands the sources, purposes, and functions of law, and the importance of the rule of law for the protection of individual rights and the common good. Understands the importance of Americans sharing and supporting certain values, beliefs and principles of American constitutional democracy. Understands the role of diversity in American life and the importance of shared values, political beliefs and civic beliefs in an increasingly diverse American society. Understands issues concerning the disparities between ideals and reality in American political and social life. Understands what is meant by "the public agenda," how it is set, and how it is influenced by public opinion and the media. Understands issues regarding personal, political and economic rights. Language Arts 1. Demonstrates competence in the general skills and strategies of the writing process. Demonstrates competence in the general skills and strategies for reading a variety of informational texts. Demonstrates a competence in speaking and listening as tools for learning.