One of the most distressing additions to American lexicon in the 21st century is the term ‘hate crime.’ A crime is a crime. There is no need for any further designation.

Last week, while walking through the basement of E.S. Bird Library, I noticed a largely tasteful exhibit commemorating a vile event in April 1997, when several Asian-American students were denied service at a local Denny’s restaurant before suffering a violent beating in the parking lot.

Titled ‘Anti-Asian Hate Crime,’ this exhibit serves a worthwhile purpose. There is no problem in drawing attention to such an abhorrent event. It deserves to be remembered, and I tip my cap to the organizers for putting it together.

But in labeling the incident a hate crime, I believe it actually does a certain disservice to the cause.

This type of labeling, along with recent legislative efforts to designate crimes of hate, denies equal legal protection for all Americans. Assaults should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, regardless of the race or sexual orientation of the victims. If the goal is to crack down on crime by enforcing stricter sentences, everyone should be afforded the same protection.

To base the level of a punishment on the victim’s race or sexual orientation is a massive affront to equality – another sacred principle of the politically correct universe, ironically enough. Giving one group preferential treatment when it comes to harassment, violence and the like creates an environment where citizens are inherently unequal. Hate crime legislation is particularly divisive, as it helps to overemphasize cultural, racial, sexual or gender differences and marginalizes the common good.

A document prominently displayed in the Bird Library exhibit mentions that the Denny’s incident was broken up by a group of conscious African-American students. This is a prime example of the fractious nature of identity politics.

I am at a complete loss to comprehend why the race of the assisting individuals was relevant. While they should be commended for doing an honorable deed, it makes absolutely no difference that they were black. For some reason, I imagine if a group of white students had come to the rescue, their race would not be noted in the exhibit.

The obsession with hate crime has made legislative strides in recent years. In October 2009, President Barack Obama signed a law making it a federal crime to assault an individual because of the victim’s sexual orientation or gender. Syracuse University, no doubt, has followed this lead.

On the first day of my freshman year, the first thing I was required to do was sign a ‘No Place for Hate’ banner. It’s not as though I am an advocate of hate, but I would say that SU has its priorities somewhat misplaced. Is this really the most pressing thing on the agenda for freshmen entering college on the first day?

The ‘No Place for Hate’ campaign may be well intentioned, but in my view it is another unfortunate foray into multiculturalism where this university bends over backward to ‘include’ every imaginable group of people – at the expense of any truly unifying principles or common ground.

I would love to see the world absent of hatred, bigotry and racism. It also wouldn’t hurt to see the phrase ‘hate crime’ ride off into the sunset. As with most politically correct ventures, this fixation on identity politics ends up doing more harm than good, more dividing than uniting.

Jimmy Paul is a senior political science major. His column appears every Tuesday, and he can be reached at jdpaul01@syr.edu.

Published on April 17, 2011 at 12:00 pm