SECTION REDIRECT: newsREDIRECT SECTION: opinionREDIRECT SECTION: opinionla

Rodriguez: Vandalized by speech

PoliticsSocial IssuesDemocracyDiscriminationCrime, Law and JusticeJustice SystemNCAA

Hate speech is a form of vandalism. It defaces the environment, and like a broken window, if left untended, signals to other hoodlums that the coast is clear to do more damage.

But unlike the proverbial broken window, which urban police departments and criminologists urge us to repair to maintain the aura of social order, nobody seems to be in much of a hurry to nip hate speech in the bud. That's because since the ill-fated attempt by several universities to regulate hate speech in the 1980s and '90s, any discussion of reining in racist taunts inevitably degrades into charges of political correctness and ends abruptly with the invocation of the 1st Amendment.

America's future depends on how well we learn to manage our diversity. Yet when it comes to hate speech, we pretty much adhere to the advice we give elementary school students to defend themselves against bullies: Sticks and stones may break your bones, but names will never hurt you. Or, as a 1st Amendment lawyer might say in a haughtier tone, because regulating speech could erode our freedom to criticize the government, hateful rhetoric is the cost of democracy.

But the cost of democracy isn't exactly being borne equally by all Americans. Despite, or perhaps because of, the social and political gains by minorities, nonwhites seem to be facing a barrage of invective these days that, if left unchecked, could damage our democracy in the long run. Even conservative cultural critics like Charles Murray are acknowledging the emergence of a disenchanted white lower class, and the Republican Party in particular is leveraging this group's disillusionment to its advantage. Some of this resentment is expressed in racial terms and goes well beyond politics.

Last week, a blatantly racist anti-Obama bumper sticker went viral on social media. Not long before that, a federal judge in Montana admitted having emailed a joke about the president that compared interracial sex to bestiality. During an NCAA tournament game a few days ago, members of the Southern Mississippi pep band hounded a Latino point guard for Kansas State with chants of "Where's your green card?" And Sacramento Bee columnist Dan Morain wrote recently about a heckler who told the U.S.-born mayor of Los Angeles to "go back to Mexico."

A decade ago, I would have made a sharp distinction between discrimination and prejudice. I understood and agreed that while the law could prohibit discrimination — that is, the denial of opportunity based on race, ethnicity, religion, etc. — it couldn't do much to keep people from feeling and expressing prejudice toward others. But nowadays, with racist rhetoric rising, I've decided we aren't taking the social effects of this type of vandalism seriously enough.

I'm not worried about anyone's hurt feelings. What I am concerned about is the extra burden nonwhites (and other minorities) are expected to bear when entering the public square, and the way tolerated hate speech may keep them on the sidelines and weaken our democracy.

Political scientists proved a long time ago that negative campaigning depresses political participation. Sociologists have argued that the decline in all kinds of civic engagement is a consequence of individual citizens becoming alienated from the larger community. Surely there's nothing like a public square awash in racial invective to foster such alienation. Although concerted attacks on a minority could mobilize its members in the short run, it stands to reason that a steady barrage of hate will force them out of civic action in the long run.

In his forthcoming book, "The Harm in Hate Speech," New York University political philosopher Jeremy Waldron calls racist rhetoric a "slow-acting poison, accumulating here and there, word by word, so that eventually it becomes harder and less natural for even the good-hearted members of the society" to engage all the members of the community. He argues that hate speech is calculated to undermine the "good standing" that everyone in a diverse democracy must have for it to function smoothly.

It's that good standing, by which he means dignity, that enables citizens to engage "on a straightforward basis with others .... in public, on the streets, in the shops, in business, and to be treated — along with everyone else — as proper objects of society's protection and concern."

I'm not ready to say that the United States should take steps to follow Canada, New Zealand, Australia, Britain, Denmark and Germany in adopting laws to regulate hate speech. But we also can't afford to continue pretending that this rhetorical vandalism isn't the kind of broken window that represents a serious threat to an orderly society.

grodriguez@latimescolumnists.com

Copyright © 2014, Los Angeles Times
Related Content
PoliticsSocial IssuesDemocracyDiscriminationCrime, Law and JusticeJustice SystemNCAA
  • So what if the Flash now has a black girlfriend?
    So what if the Flash now has a black girlfriend?

    Like a lot of baby boomers who grew up reading DC comics, I watched the premiere of “The Flash,” a re-reimagining of the “Silver Age” version of the Fastest Man Alive. Tuesday’s episode on the CW network aligned at several points with the 1956 origin story in...

  • Shame on Texas and the U.S. Supreme Court
    Shame on Texas and the U.S. Supreme Court

    In allowing Texas' voter identification law to go into effect, at least for the November election, the U.S. Supreme Court last week showed the nation precisely what it meant in 2013 when its conservatives struck down the heart of the Voting Rights Act in Shelby County vs. Holder.

  • The problem with the 'R' word? A Muskogee/Creek Indian explains it all for you
    The problem with the 'R' word? A Muskogee/Creek Indian explains it all for you

    As a mixed-blood Muscogee/Creek Indian, I would like to commend Washington, D.C.'s professional football team on its tasteful logo. The American Indian in profile with two eagle feathers is dignified and respectful.

  • Asian Americans would lose out under affirmative action
    Asian Americans would lose out under affirmative action

    A recent Field Poll claimed that most registered voters and Asian Americans in California support affirmative action. Based on the poll data, Karthick Ramakrishnan, a professor of public policy and political science at UC Riverside, indicated that the intense opposition to State...

  • Daniele Watts, in her own words
    Daniele Watts, in her own words

    Some experiences stay with us. When I was 16, my father was driving me home from a school play when we saw flashing lights. We hadn't been speeding. I remember my father asking the police officer what was wrong. The officer ignored his question and demanded identification.

  • California needs to look again at Asian stance on affirmative action
    California needs to look again at Asian stance on affirmative action

    Earlier this year, the California legislature tabled a proposed referendum that sought to restore affirmative action in higher education. The measure had sailed through the Senate with a two-thirds vote and was awaiting approval in the Assembly. However, after intense opposition and...

  • Daniele Watts case: Did confrontation with LAPD have to happen?
    Daniele Watts case: Did confrontation with LAPD have to happen?

    Here’s the basic question about the case of Daniele Watts, the young black actress who was detained and handcuffed on a Studio City sidewalk Thursday after refusing to provide identification to police officers: Did the confrontation have to happen at all?   

  • America's tolerance dilemma
    America's tolerance dilemma

    Americans like to believe that our exceptional story was cooked up in the proverbial melting pot. And it's true that we've broadly taken strength from our diversity. But the way we engage our differences has more recently begun to shift. We're more tolerant today than...

Comments
Loading