Diversity Issue

Famed civil rights activist Martin Luther King Jr. said that he had a dream that his "four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." While Dr. King relied on public appearances and television to promote his message of tolerance, now, more than 30 years later, hate groups have the Internet at their disposal and are using it to advance their message of intolerance.

Could you be a target?

The Internet is increasingly becoming a powerful communication tool in today's society, and, as such, has become an instrument for hate groups to increase their numbers by recruiting new members online. These groups primarily target middle class, college-bound students, according to Mark Potok, a spokesman for the Southern Poverty Law Center, a non-profit group that monitors hate groups on the Internet.

"The Internet naturally targets the audience that these groups are interested in - middle class kids with computers," said Potok. "Their use of the Internet is an effort to reach young kids who will develop into their leaders of tomorrow."

The web sites themselves are often eye-catching, enticing young students who may have just stumbled upon them, to look further.

"They dress up their message of hate in an interesting and sometimes comical way with cartoons and puzzles," said Robin Parker, chief of the Office of Bias Crime and Community Relations in Trenton, which prosecutes hate crimes in New Jersey.

While their message of hate on the Internet may be more subtle to lure their target audience, using phrases like "shrinking our enemies," when referring to minorities, the message of violence is clear and increases the potential for hate crimes.

What is a hate crime?

In New Jersey, a hate crime is defined as a criminal offense, usually involving violence, intimidation or vandalism, in which the victim is targeted because of his or her race, religion, sexual orientation, ethnicity, gender or mental or physical disability. Unlike other criminal activity, a hate crime impacts more than just the victim. In fact, a hate crime victimizes the entire community where the crime occurred, creating fear among its members.

Some states have no laws against hate crimes. New Jersey has tough laws that double the penalties for any crime that is determined to be a hate crime. "New Jersey is a leader in terms of sentencing maximums for hate crimes," said Parker.

According to Parker, every county in New Jersey has a law enforcement officer whose duty it is to deal with bias crimes. In some counties there may be someone who dedicates all of his or her time to bias crimes and in some counties it is part of a particular person's duties.

The determination of whether a crime has been committed as a result of bias is, in New Jersey, currently left up to the judge. The issue is, however, being debated by some who say a jury should make that judgment. The U.S. Supreme Court will decide whether to uphold New Jersey's hate crime laws in the coming months.

Policing the Internet

Do hate crime laws apply to the Internet? According to Potok, Internet sites generally cannot be prosecuted as hate crimes, however, cases involving e-mail hate messages have been prosecuted.

The first such case came to trial in 1996 when Richard Machado was federally prosecuted for sending hate mail via the Internet. A student at the University of California - Irvine, Machado sent an e-mail to 59 Asian students threatening to kill them. Machado's first trial ended with a hung jury, unable to reach a verdict. The judge declared a mistrial. Machado was later retried, convicted and sentenced to one year in jail.

In another case, Bonnie Jouhari, an employee of the Reading-Berks Human Relations Council in Reading, Pa. and an anti-hate activist, was terrorized by Alpha, a Philadelphia-based white supremacist group. Alpha posted threats against Jouhari and other state government employees on its web site, including a graphic of Jouhari's office exploding. The Pennsylvania Attorney General's Office cited the group for making "terroristic threats, harassing messages and ethnic intimidation." The case resulted in the web site being shut down.

While the First Amendment gives everyone the right to state his or her opinions freely and openly, even if those opinions promote bigotry, it does not give anyone the right to threaten bodily harm against another person or group of persons.

How can hate be stopped?

"The only real inoculation against hate is to talk openly about it," said Potok who encourages kids to talk with their parents or other adults about these hate groups. "A discussion about hate sites that deny the Holocaust, for example, can turn into a frank discussion about what really happened in World War II," he suggested.

The Office of Bias Crimes and Community Relations where Parker works also monitors hate groups on the Internet and offers a presentation for parents and teachers called, Hate on the Internet. The program alerts adults about what today's children could be exposed to on the Internet.

While the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Office of Bias Crime, along with other organizations such as the Anti-Defamation League, do their best to monitor the activities of these hate groups, the decision whether to accept or reject the intolerance of these groups is up to you.

top of page

Following are 10 suggestions for dealing with prejudice in your daily life.

1. Don't ignore it! Don't let an ethnic slur or joke pass without a remark. To do so sends the message that you are in agreement with such behavior or attitudes.
   
   
2. Be aware of your own hesitancies to intervene in these situations. Confront your own fears about interrupting discrimination, set your priorities, and take action.
   
   
3. Be open to the limitations your attitudes, stereotypes, and expectations place on your perspective. None of us remain untouched by the discriminatory images and behaviors we have been socialized to believe.
   
   
4. Don't be afraid of possible tension or conflict. In certain situations it may be unavoidable. These are sensitive and deep-seated issues that won't change without some struggle.
   
   
5. Project a feeling of understanding when discriminatory events occur.
   
   
6. Explain and engage when you confront prejudice. Try not to preach or be self-righteous.
   
   
7. Eradicating racism is a long-term struggle requiring continuous change and growth. Try not to get too frustrated.
   
   
8. Be a role model. Practice the positive values you are trying to teach. Try not to compartmentalize your response to "multi-cultural time."
   
   
9. Distinguish between categorical thinking and stereotyping. For example, "redheads" is a category, but "redheads have fiery tempers" is a stereotype.
   
   
10. Remember that issues of human dignity, equality and safety are non-negotiable.
    
    

Adapted from Patti DeRosa's The Multicultural Project, Communication and Education Inc., Cambridge, Massachusetts.

top of page

Most children grow up with pride in their heritage, knowledge of their culture, and firm ties to their ancestry. I was in my teens before I openly admitted to being a Japanese-American. My Japanese ancestry has always been a hidden part of my personality. I learned at an early age how to smile so that my almond-shaped eyes seemed larger, and later on I became skillful at using eyeliner to hide any trace of Oriental features. Like any child, it was not inane that I hid this one part of my heritage. I was taught by the examples set by many family members whom I loved and respected.

My grandfather and his three brothers are Japanese. They were born in the United States in the early 1900s and returned to Japan during their formative years. They settled permanently in the United States in the late 1930s, at the beginning of the anti-Japanese sentiment, which swept the nation for over two decades, and still affects people like me today. This anti-Japanese feeling invaded the American mind, leaving long-lasting ramifications on the Americans who were unfortunate enough to have a Japanese heritage at a time when having almond-shaped eyes was enough to make bypassers spit upon them in the street. The discrimination felt by my grandfather and his brothers, all American citizens, was enough to make them abandon their Japanese names for American names. This was their first step in their extermination of their culture.

When Japan bombed Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7, 1941, the lives of not only my relatives, but of all Japanese-Americans were drastically changed forever. Japanese-American citizens were treated as aliens in their own country. They were seen as spies even if they had no connections to Japan. These people were outcasts in their towns and were blamed for the actions of a country millions of miles away. While the United States watched in horror as Nazi Germany marched men, women and children to concentration camps for being Jewish, the United States was relocating thousands of American citizens to internment camps, solely for being Japanese. Over 110,000 Japanese-Americans and Japanese natives were relocated from coastal states such as California and Washington. They were forced to leave their homes and families. Many were allowed to take only what they could carry and some were given only a few days notice of their relocation. My grandfather and one of his brothers were two of the Japanese-Americans interned in Oklahoma. The United States Army jailed them after they had enlisted to fight for the United States. The Army believed at that time that Japanese-Americans could not be trusted as American soldiers. They were interned until the government could figure out what to do with them.

The conditions in the internment camps were far from comfortable. As internees were moved from their homes to the camps, they were held at staging areas made from old horse stalls. They were given communal bathrooms and showers in converted horse showers, with no partitions or privacy. This robbed many people of their dignity and pride. The camps were located in deserts. Barbed wire surrounded the barracks that housed the internees and armed guards were stationed at intervals along the fences. Most of the people there had no idea how long they would be held, or why.

It was in February 1943 that the Army began running out of soldiers. In an effort to draft more men, interned Japanese-Americans were offered the opportunity to free their families from the camps by volunteering to join the Army in the European theatre.

With that, the 442nd Regimental Combat Team was created. It was comprised of Japanese-Americans whose motto was, "Go For Broke." These men, including my grandfather and two of his brothers, knew that they had to prove to our country that they were just as devoted to America as any other American citizen. The 442nd ended the war as the most highly decorated team for bravery and valor. Yet, they were still seen as expendable by the Army and as foreigners by those people they fought to protect.

When Japan was defeated in 1945, the internees were finally released and what remained of the 442nd Regimental Combat Team returned home. Instead of being treated as the heroes they were, these Japanese-Americans were still insulted, alienated and taken advantage of. It was because of mistreatment by our government and their neighbors that my grandfather and his brothers buried their heritage. They practiced no Japanese customs, pretended that they could not read nor speak Japanese and refused to date or marry Japanese women. The mistreatment they suffered made them ashamed of their culture. They never spoke of or acknowledged their Japanese ancestry. When my father was five years old, an elderly woman called him a Jap. She told him to go back to his own country. He was a second generation American citizen. Spurred by this incident, and hoping to achieve better lives for his family, my grandfather legally changed his last name from Nishimura to Nish. He hoped that this change would make his name less ethnic. And so, I grew up hiding my culture, just as my father did, and just as my grandfather did.

I realize now, by doing research on the history of the treatment of Japanese-Americans, that I have no reason to hide who I am. I am not ashamed of my ancestry, and I am proud that my grandfather and his brothers so valiantly served my country. I am ashamed that the United States hurt so many of its own people and I am outraged that few schools include the internment of Japanese-Americans in their history curriculum. It is sad that my great uncle, at 85 years old, still refuses to speak Japanese. Yet, I know that I will never again be afraid to show who I am. I am proud of what the Japanese-Americans in this country have endured and I will make sure that my children grow up knowing that the shape of their eyes is a key into who they are, one which should not be hidden but worn with confidence.

Caitlin Nish is a graduate of Westfield High School and is currently attending the University of Michigan.

top of page

Affirmative action - is it a legitimate means for women and minorities to combat discrimination and achieve equal opportunity, or is it a discriminatory preference based on race and gender? The only thing that is clear about affirmative action is that the way one views it largely depends on how one defines it.

What is Affirmative Action?

To understand affirmative action, one must look back to before the term existed. In 1955, a black woman named Rosa Parks refused to move to a segregated section of a Montgomery, Alabama bus, sparking the bus boycott that began the civil rights movement. In 1963, over 200,000 people of all races took part in the March on Washington, D.C. to insist upon racial equality. There, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. delivered his "I Have a Dream" speech. In 1964, President Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This Act banned segregation, established a Commission on Equal Employment Opportunity (EEOC) and enabled the government to institute lawsuits to prevent discrimination in public facilities, public education and federally assisted programs.

Affirmative action in employment and contracting was first initiated by President Johnson in 1965 when he signed Executive Order 11246. The purpose of the order was to require contractors doing business with the federal government to make conscious and deliberate efforts to bring qualified minorities into jobs from which they had been traditionally excluded. This is the definition of affirmative action as it was originally instituted. The concept was further strengthened when the Department of Labor, under President Richard Nixon, issued an order that required organizations to make "good faith efforts" to meet "goals and timetables." It also provided that rigid and inflexible quotas were illegal. Quotas refer to hiring a certain number of minority employees. In 1971, the concept of affirmative action was extended to include women.

There are three major categories of affirmative action: employment, education and contracting. This article will focus on employment and education. In the employment category, there are areas of law and regulation that require affirmative action for women, minorities and two other "protected groups." Affirmative action exists for people with disabilities by the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and for veterans, under the Vietnam Veterans Readjustment Act of 1974. These are federal laws, but most states, including New Jersey, have adopted state laws similar to the federal standards.

The U.S. Supreme Court has developed safeguards to ensure that affirmative action expands opportunity in a way that is fair to all people. First, the programs must be narrowly tailored to serve a compelling interest. For example, a program that barred businesses from receiving government contracts if they failed to meet affirmative action goals in their hiring was terminated because it was too broad. Second, affirmative action programs must apply to qualified candidates and not be based on quotas. Third, programs must end at some point and be reviewed regularly to see if they are working.

Is Affirmative Action Still Needed?

In 1991, a special commission, appointed by President George Bush, found that women and minorities comprise only three to five percent of the senior management positions in major companies, and suggested that women and minority workers still face "serious barriers to advancement." In order to remedy this disparity, the Commission offered recommendations, including that affirmative action be used by companies to see that qualified women and minorities have an equal chance to compete.

The EEOC has developed guidelines for employers to assist them in carrying out the anti-discrimination mandate set forth in the Civil Rights Act. Employers are encouraged to develop and distribute written equal employment policies. They are also allowed to monitor specific employment practices to determine whether they have a discriminatory impact either in hiring, promotion or compensation and are encouraged to hold equal affirmative action program training for those who make personnel decisions. In addition, employers may undertake special recruitment efforts and initiate programs to improve the skills of employees. They are encouraged to keep records in order to know the impact of their employment practices, and may also establish numeric goals and timetables and make changes to correct other identified problem areas.

Affirmative action is not intended to promote the hiring of people who are not qualified for a position simply because of their race or gender. Therefore, all affirmative action plans must be flexible, realistic, reviewable and designed to hire the most qualified individuals, while at the same time achieving equal opportunity.

Affirmative Action in Education

In the area of education, affirmative action programs have come under fire. The U.S. Supreme Court banned educational quotas in 1978 when it ruled as unconstitutional a program at the medical school at the University of California at Davis that set aside 16 places of the 100 places in each year's class for disadvantaged members of certain minority groups. Although it banned the program, the Court said that race could be taken into account in admissions programs as one of the factors for consideration in achieving educational diversity. However, such programs would have to involve comparison of all applicants and not separately compare minority applicants with other minority applicants.

Since that Supreme Court ruling, California has passed Proposition 209, which prohibits any preferential treatment on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin in all public hiring, contracting and education. A similar referendum failed in Texas; however, a federal appeals court did ban racial preferences in public universities. With similar initiatives being discussed in many states, including New Jersey, the debate on affirmative action will continue as the courts and the legislature try to find ways to remedy the lingering effects of past discrimination, equalize opportunities and prevent discrimination.

Lisa James-Beavers is Director of the School Ethics Commission in Trenton, She is the Second Vice President of the New Jersey State Bar Foundation and is actively involved as a volunteer in the Foundation's public education programs.

top of page

Have you ever mistaken a person for someone else of the same race? If so, according to the New Jersey Supreme Court, you are not alone, especially if you are of a different race than the person you are identifying.

Eyewitness identification-a witness testifying that she saw a particular defendant commit a crime-is one of the most convincing pieces of evidence the prosecution can present at a trial. Juries usually believe eyewitness identification even when a witness's opportunity to see the criminal was brief or the witness's observation was compromised because of factors like bad lighting. After centuries of experience, courts have concluded that eyewitness identifications of strangers are the least reliable evidence unless other facts link a defendant to the crime.

The problem is especially difficult when a witness identifies a stranger of a different race.

"Study after study shows that there is a much higher chance of misidentification when you have somebody trying to make the identification across racial lines," said Richard Rosen, a law professor from the University of North Carolina. "People are most able to accurately identify those from their own racial group because they're used to making the distinctions between those they spend time with regularly."

The issue recently came before the Supreme Court of New Jersey in State v. Cromedy. In that case, the victim, a white woman, identified McKinley Cromedy, a black man, as her attacker. She only saw Cromedy briefly and was unable to recognize him when police showed her Cromedy's photo the following day. Eight months later, however, the victim saw him crossing the street in her neighborhood and believed that he was the assailant. Police arrested Cromedy and the victim then identified him from behind a one-way mirror at police headquarters. Other than the victim's identification, there was no other evidence, such as fingerprints, indicating that Cromedy committed the crime.

Because it has been shown that people can often fail to accurately recognize the faces of strangers of a different race, the Court decided that the jury should receive special instructions from the trial judge when such "cross-racial identifications" are a critical issue in a case. The idea is to alert the jury that they should question the accuracy of a cross-racial identification if the witness and defendant are strangers, and there is no other evidence of the defendant's guilt. In fact, recent scientific tests of the physical evidence used at Cromedy's trial showed conclusively that he did not commit the attack. After more than six years in prison, Cromedy was released in December 1999 when the county prosecutor's office dropped the charges against him.

Psychologists say that we can best distinguish the features of those with whom we are most familiar. Because we usually spend much of our time with persons of the same racial background, they say, we often unconsciously lump together the physical features of persons from other races.

It is also important to remember that what may be true for many people is not true for everyone. Some people can readily identify strangers from different races. By taking the time to get to know people from different racial, ethnic and cultural backgrounds, each of us can do a better job of recognizing the unique differences among members of groups that make up our communities.

Robin Parker is Deputy Attorney General in the Department of Law and Public Safety, Division of Criminal Justice. He is also Chief of the Office of Bias Crime and Community Relations.

top of page

Students from Sampson G. Smith School in Somerset
responded to the following question.

How do you think your cultural background affects your view of the justice system?

I am Jewish, and if there is one thing I and every other Jew learned from the hardships Jews of the past had to go through, it is that everyone should be treated equally. This is true in the criminal justice system also. Any accused person is "innocent until proven guilty" and should be treated the same way an innocent person would be. The criminal justice system gives everyone a fair trial and basic rights. Through the years, Jews have had such rights violated and were not treated as equals. - Robert Gross

My cultural background affects my view of the criminal justice system because, as a minority, I feel that people should be treated equally in the criminal justice system. I don't think that this is happening, though. I feel that the majority is being treated better in this system than the minority. This seems unjust. All races should be treated equally in the criminal justice system. - Chelsea Goodwin

People react differently to each and every culture. I think if people thought of every culture as their own, they wouldn't be offended if another person does something in their own way. I think people should be able to practice their religion without the public making a big deal about it. Crimes that occur due to culture aren't necessary. They can be prevented. People need to understand that there are many ways to believe in God, pray or follow customs and beliefs in their own way. I also believe that the criminal justice system isn't mainly for disputes of cultural background. There are many more important issues that need to be resolved. - Puja Shahi

As a minority, I feel as though all people are supposed to be treated equally and we are not. My view of the justice system is a bit prejudice because they try to accuse minorities of things they don't do. For example, O.J. Simpson was accused of killing his wife. I understand that he was a prime suspect, but he was proven innocent. Yet, he is still treated poorly by many people, as if he committed the crime. - Amirah Patterson

I think a person's cultural background will affect what they think of the criminal justice system. For example, people of different religions will have different opinions on the death penalty. A Christian person would probably be against the death penalty because the Bible says "thou shall not kill." An atheist probably won't see anything wrong with the death penalty. They don't believe in God, so they don't care what the Bible says. They would think that since a person committed murder, they should get a penalty equal to the crime. - Jeremy Becker

I think that to different cultures, different values are more important than others. In the same way, some crimes committed may seem less serious to some cultures than to others. Some may feel that the penalties for crimes are either too much or not enough in today's justice system. Also, in some male-dominated cultures women are not viewed as important. Crimes committed against women are taken very seriously in the United States, but in other cultures these may just be overlooked. A person's culture has a lot to do with how they feel about the justice system and crime. - Krithika Sukumar

top of page

bigotry - an attitude or state of mind of intolerance.

compelling interest - an interest that must be protected.

eyewitness identification - type of evidence where someone who has seen the event or crime testifies as to the person or persons involved.

executive order - an order or regulation issued by the President.

hung jury - a jury that is so divided in its opinions that it is unable to reach a unanimous verdict.

mistrial - a trial that has been ended before its conclusion because of an error in procedure.

narrowly tailored - particularly suited.

quota- a proportional part or share of a fixed total amount or, as in the article, the number of persons of a specified group permitted to participate in some type of activity.

referendum - the referral of a measure proposed or passed by a legislative body to the voters for approval or rejection.

segregated - separated or set apart from others or from the main body or group.