OCR Text |
Show 4 Monday April 14, 2014 OPINION www.dailyutahchronicle.corn Hate crimes against LGBT victims should be seen as such JORDAN VOGEL Columnist s sexual orientation and gender identity hate crimes increase, so should efforts to prevent them. Last week, a woman in Michigan, one of the 19 states which does not contain sexual orientation in their hate crimes list, was recognized from her televised same-sex wedding and attacked. The FBI reported in 2006 that while the rate of hate crimes overall is decreasing in the United States, those based on sexual orientation are increasing. In 2011, the New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services reported an increased rate in its state from the previous year. In 2005, the Bureau of Justice statistics concluded that only 44percent of hate crimes are even reported. Backlash within society and families that many LGBT individuals receive when choosing not to maintain secrecy causes many of these hate crimes to go unreported than, for example, those motivated by race or disability. Legal assurance of justice is one more step to making sure the assailants don't escape persecution. The federal courts consider attacks based on sexual orientation a hate crime, but because of the controversial national stage the subject has taken in recent years, the federal courts are not the only ones that need to crack down. The majority of hate crimes are prosecuted at the state level. Therefore, even though it is a federal law, each state needs to pass individual laws to make legal efforts effective. Utah is among the states which do not specify sexual orientation in its hate crime law. Instead, it criminalizes the intent to terrorize or intimidate in general. Specifying that LGBT individuals are under state protection would help to make citizens aware that violence will against sexual orientation will not be tolerated. While heated debates continue around the country on this subject, it is important to recognize that violence is not freedom of speech. Hate crimes lists identify a common intent for crimes, beyond individual harm. As Chris Kolb, a former Michigan state representative said, "They are sending a message to a group of people," and whether or not a person thinks that LGBT persons should be recognized legally, this motivation to act should be discouraged in any way possible. letters@chronicle.utah.edu A SALLY YOO/The Daily Utah Chronicle Fight song is exclusive, sexist Conflict shows U students need education on social justice GEORGIE ZAMANTAKIS Columnist s ince the passing of the ASUU resolution to encourage discussion around making the Utah Fight Song more inclusive, students have taken sides — mostly through social media. Two Facebook pages popped up this last week. One, titled "A Utah INCLUSIVE FAN Am I," asks students to "consider an alternative to 'Utah Man am I' in the Utah Fight Song." The page, as well as the resolution and the prompting by Sam Ortiz, encourages discussion around the issue, not immediate change. The second page, "A Utah MAN Am I," sprang up in reaction, garnering over 2,000 likes from students and declares, "The U has been discussing the possible change of our fight song and we need to let them know we AREN'T ok with a change!!!" The difference between the two is that those wanting change are asking for a discussion, while others are immediately shutting down the idea. It says a lot about a university — and a population — when thousands of students are more than ready to fight against conversations concerning social justice issues. UtahPigBus was quoted by The Daily Utah Chronicle saying, "How ridiculous, Utah's fight song is being changed [because] feminist students object to it ..." The call for discussion has lead to a debate between tradition and progress, with students, alumni, and even professors making a mockery of attempts for change, sending hate mail to the student body president, and making illogical statements about political correctness, feminism, sexism and racism. One individual on The Salt Lake Tribune's website commented, "Sexism is in the eye of the beholder. So is racism. Leave the song, logo and mascot alone. It will not have any effect on actual racism and sexism. I am so sick of this PC nonsense." Obviously, they have no idea what sexism or racism is. The definitions of sexism and racism according to Carleton University include, "the conventional practices or structures of institutions that have the effect of excluding or discriminating against individuals or groups" for their actual/perceived race or sex. The exclusion of anyone who is not a man in this song is obvious. While in regards to progress for women everywhere this may seem small, but it has become obvious through this conflict, that students, alumni and U professors have serious lack of concern for individuals outside of themselves. Individuals want change. Women and genderqueer individuals, among others are left out, as most don't identify as a man. As Sam Ortiz says to The Salt Lake Tribune, "The idea that man means both female and male is a little antiquated," not to mention that male and female aren't the only sexes or genders that exist. Is it too much to ask that the word "man" is changed to "fan" and that other slight changes are made? The U is meant to be an inclusive place. While this change would not force inclusivity upon the campus, this call for discussion has made it clear that there are larger issues at play here. Students at the U have a lacking education on social justice, bigotry and inclusion, and that needs to change. letters@chronicle.utah.edu Intelligence agencies need more budget oversight JACKSON HANNON Columnist 0 n Tuesday of last week, Rep. Peter Welch (D-Vt.) was interviewed by NPR. The discussion touched on his opinion of Edward Snowden — whistleblower or traitor, depending on who you talk to — but more importantly, focused on the bill he is sponsoring, the Intelligence Budget Transparency Act of 2014. While the name is fairly straightforward, in sum, it requires that each budget submitted by a president include dollar amounts for the "intelligence or intelligence related activities" of each intelligence agency. The most basic level of transparency at least is necessary in all government decisions so that we can better understand where money is being spent, and whether or not it is actually working towards a useful purpose. The Washington Post last year put together a chart, in which they claimed that the black budget reached a total of $52.6 billion in 2013, and the intelligence apparatus was still "unable to provide critical information to the president on a range of national security threats." This is the same billion dollar creation which oversaw the enormous NSA spying projects that multiple officials have claimed have allowed the government to gain intelligence key to stopping more than 5o terrorist threats to the United States, a claim which still is unverifiable, largely because the information has remained classified, thanks to claims by the administration and other intelligence agency leaders that it would cause harm to the current system. In a response to The Washington Post in 2013 about the classified budget, Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, argued that "Our budgets are classified as they could provide insight for foreign intelligence services" that would limit the ability of American agencies to gather intelligence and effectively deal with threats to national security. While I understand the sentiment that Director Clapper expressed, I do wonder if there is really such harm in allowing a semi-transparent budget to be available to the public so that there can be a better sense of accountability. It is ludicrous to assume that foreign intelligence services would not already be operating under the assumption that U.S. services have the funding and access to almost preposterous levels of ability to gather information. Writing a black check and allowing the agencies to do as they please with almost no public oversight is a serious failing on the part of the entire government of the U.S. The Obama administration and the intelligence agencies themselves are not the only ones at fault, regardless of how Congressional representatives attempt to portray themselves. In a recent TED talk by Richard Ledgett, the NICK KETTERER/The Daily Utah Chronicle Deputy Director of the NSA, he argued that the NSA provided all relevant information to the overseeing committees of Congress and that it was a failing on their part not to disseminate that information fully throughout the representatives. I'm sure that many representatives and Ledgett have differing opinions on what constitutes "all relevant information," yet there is something to be said for that. Our representatives are supposed to do exactly that. They are elected by the people of their home states and sent to make those positions clear on issues. If they find that there is something which they or their constituencies are unaware of or uncomfortable about, the burden is on them to push for better and more transparency in those issues. Our representatives should not wait for a private contractor to feel obliged to release a treasure trove of documents to the whole world to demand more oversight on dark budgets and agencies. They are the ones who should push for more oversight so that the private contractors of the U.S. I do not feel so obliged. They have failed in that regard, and while their current efforts are great, they also appear to be the efforts of representatives working to limit the damage to their own reputation because of their failings. letters@chronicle.utah.edu |