STOP THE HATE: Woon on Bias Protocols

By Daniel F. Linsalata and Kevin c. Hudak | Monday, April 26, 2004

The University of Massachusetts at Lowell recently held a conference for students and administrators in order to help them "STOP THE HATE." While The Dartmouth Review is rarely able to attend these sorts of things, this time we were able to weasel our way in (though it wasn't too difficult). Even more propitiously, Tommy Lee Woon, an Assistant Dean of Student Life and the director of the Office of Pluralism and Leadership, was one of the featured speakers. He was slated to discuss the ways institutions of higher learning could put a "bias protocol" into effect, similar to the system he has set up at Dartmouth. As exciting as it sounds, the staff was forced to draw straws and the two of us lost.

— Tommy Lee Woon: Self-identifies as a "rice cooker." Seriously. —

Once we arrived on the Lowell campus, we felt a twinge of excitement—we were ready to STOP THE HATE. Of course, the thrill soon departed. At the registration table we received name tags and a binder containing a schedule, several pages of statistics, and a listing of websites for organizations devoted to tolerance and combating hate. There was even an order form to purchase twenty packs of thought-provoking "I Dare You" 17-by-21 inch posters for $120, the first real crime we encountered that day. We also picked up several buttons bearing the ironic slogan, "Hate DOES NOT discriminate." Before things got started, we made our way to the main room, eagerly searching out Dean Woon, or, alternatively, the continental breakfast.

A woman identified only as Donna came over and introduced herself. Donna, a "Student Diversity Training Consultant," was thoroughly impressed at our dedication for driving all the way from Hanover. We sighed and told her that we thought it was going to be a long day; she assumed we were referring to the travel time and not the content of the program. Donna was distressed to learn that we were only attending as members of the press corps, and hoped that we were interested in the educational components of the program. Not realizing who we were, Donna inquired as to whether "The Dartmouth Review has a section devoted to hate crimes and bias," and we assured her that the Review indeed had a strong interest in covering events such as STOP THE HATE. Donna hoped that the Review would continue to do such important work, and we promised her that we would.

There were about fifty people present at the conference, no less than forty-five of whom were white. The introductory speaker explained the rationale for the conference and cited a survey in which only sixty percent of university presidents declared that race relations remained the largest unresolved issue on campus. Good Lord—only sixty per cent?

Case in point—the keynote speaker, Steve Wessler. A formal hate crimes prosecutor, Mr. Wessler currently makes his living as the Director of the Center for the Prevention of Hate Violence at the University of Southern Maine. (We later learned that he was paid to come to Dartmouth to school Undergraduate Advisors in bias protocol.) He asserted that all bias incidents stem from the casual use of derogatory language, and tried to prove his point by having audience members read aloud excerpts from bias incident reports, most of which were jokes playing on racial stereotypes. As the audience recoiled in horror, we bit our tongues and jotted down some of the one-liners, including, "All the students from the Middle East smell bad because they don't take showers" and "Asian students always blow the curve." Taste has prevented us from repeating the more incendiary examples in this forum, though Kevin could not bear to read aloud his card, which concerned instructions on how to save an African American man from drowning. Still, nothing could stop us from chuckling when a balding, fifty-something campus security officer from Merrimack claimed that he cried when "they called me a cunt."

While Wessler's speech had its lighter moments, the offsetting weaknesses slipped easily by most members of the audience. He built his case for the prevalence of hate on campuses by continuously referring back to the same three or four chilling (but isolated) anecdotes, extrapolating from those that violent hate crimes are rampant on campuses nationwide. Unconvinced by Wessler's sui generis argument, we moved into the first breakout session.

Next, we were required to decide what "level session" best suited us. The schedule indicated "Beginner," "Intermediate," and "Advanced;" we weren't sure if this referred to levels of bias or levels of training. We had witnessed the unfolding of the "disturbing" Dry Dog Food Incident at Dartmouth (in which an African-American found dog food at the foot of her door), so we considered ourselves to be overqualified for the beginner level. Despite our advanced prejudices, we did not quite consider ourselves ready to make the leap into the advanced program, "Indicators of Bias and Victim Impact," so we signed into the intermediate level, "Reporting and Documenting."

Our group leader, Victoria Angis, a student activities director from Castleton State College, offered the "disclaimer" that she was "neither an attorney nor a police officer" but nonetheless qualified to educate others on bias protocol. She first presented a definition of a "hate incident": "an act of conduct, speech, or expression to which a bias motive is a contributing factor." The group seemed to assimilate this definition fairly well.

Unfortunately, some narrow-minded participants had more trouble with the definition of a hate crime. The group leader emphasized that a hate crime must be an actual crime, such as assault, murder, or vandalism. To the obvious astonishment of some in attendance, writing or speaking ethnic slurs cannot be prosecuted. When Ms. Angis posted a table of hate crime motives over the past ten years, one participant asked why women were not among the groups of victims. She appeared unsatisfied that gender does not fall under hate crimes legislation.

The rest of the session continued in much the same manner: self-evident proposals were brought up, and someone became confused, or the most obvious responses escaped people. When the discussion turned to the reasons police might not list bias as a motive for a crime, the other group members threw around ideas for several minutes before Hudak finally quipped that if there is no actual bias, then it will not be reported as such. The room seemed stunned by his logic.

Ms. Angis presented step-by-step procedures for the investigation of a bias incident with the aid of a video depicting a hate crime in which a Jewish man was man-handled by two Neo-Nazis outside his synagogue. Ms. Angis' final harangue dealt with our plan of action if a bias incident occurred on our campus. The most important tenet was that a victim must be believed until he or she is proven false. When we pointed out that such thinking defies logic and traditional American legal practice, we were told that such frivolities—like whether or not the incident has actually happened—do not matter when bias has been reported. The most important thing is the feelings of the victim. The discussion concluded shortly thereafter with a description of "Bias Incident Teams." Similar to the groups Tommy Lee Woon has instituted at the College, these teams are composed of student leaders and administrators who are trained to deal with bias incidents and called to action when one is reported.

After lunch, Dean Woon arrived and delivered a lecture entitled, "A Campus Model for Addressing Bias Incidents." Before he began, he asked the audience to introduce themselves. Most were student activity coordinators or student government representatives hoping to design their own protocol system ("stealing his ideas" as they put it) at their respective colleges. During these 'round-the-room introductions, Tommy Woon continually nodded, half-attentive. When we introduced ourselves as staff members of The Dartmouth Review, he snapped to attention, caught off guard. He quickly collected himself, however, and delivered a coherent (though drawn-out) presentation about the implementation of a bias protocol.

"A bias incident," he explained, "is like a virus; it's contagious" and can spread to affect the entire campus. He cited the Aires incident from the fall term, in which an a cappella group made 'racist' jokes, as an example of how an event witnessed by just a few people can move an entire campus. There is a bright side however, as just five years ago, a similar incident may have "caused a campus-wide riot."

To further emphasize the necessity of a bias protocol, he posted hate crime and bias incident totals from universities nationwide for the last five years. To the shock of many present, whites constituted nearly the largest group of victims, save blacks. Caucasians were the targets of more incidents than any other group, including Hispanics, gays, Jews, and Muslims. A black woman in the back of the audience quickly expressed her indignation at the idea of bias against whites. Woon quickly shot her down, pointing out that bias is a universal concept, not specific or exclusive of any one group.

More discussion of what constitutes bias followed this brief confrontation. Woon explained that "calling me a chink" is acceptable and protected as free speech, but "calling me a fucking chink" crosses the line into harassment. He confessed dryly that he actively "tries to bait people by having them call me a chink as often as possible. Soon, it turns into harassment and I can hold that over them."

A different member in the audience asked if people who avoid sitting with a black or gay student in the dining hall represented bias, and what the protocol suggests in that instance. Woon shook his head in resignation, and calmly explained that such an instance would show intolerance, but would be impossible to control through any protocol; people are always more comfortable with those who are like themselves. As an example of a true bias incident that cannot truly be considered a crime, he pointed to an incident at Dartmouth in the 1980s in which a gay student was locked in a closet for a week and came out emaciated. Though the administration understandably avoids all mention of the incident, the story has been recycled by alumni for years.

Woon spoke of the "secondary trauma" that a school feels in the wake of a publicized bias incident; referring to the reverberations among alumni. In essence, members of a group threatened or victimized in a bias incident become unlikely to support the college, leading to a drop-off in donations from these students upon their graduation. Immediately after tending to the target of a bias incident, Woon said, the most immediate concern should be to limit secondary trauma. Over the years, minorities have been the least likely group to donate to colleges, due in large part to rumors or acts of bias.

Continuing, he explained that there is an inherent "hierarchy of oppression" that inevitably causes a domino effect when new diversity programs are instituted. Blacks inevitably feel the most oppressed, followed by Native Americans, then Hispanics and Asians, then white women. The difficulty comes when an institution tries to make concessions to one of these groups; each group above it on the hierarchy will demand the same special treatment. For instance, when Native Americans feel they have been victimized or targeted, not only must the university address the needs of the Native Americans, but also those of blacks who want the same treatment. Neglecting such accommodations creates dissension among black alumni, who will cut back on their donations, Woon concluded.

However, because minorities have been notoriously low donors, there also exists a "need to protect white people from being accused of racism" lest they too become disenfranchised. Because whites make up the majority of the donor base, such disenfranchisement could be potentially disastrous. When asked why it would then make sense for a school to focus on diversity so much, given that it brings additional costs to already strapped budgets, Woon replied that diversity in schools is simply a response to the world as it is.

In response to the outbursts from the audience concerning the possibility of anti-white racism, we felt obligated to ask if it were possible for the "dominant" group to be the target of bias. That is, can straight, white males be discriminated against? Woon replied that, in principle, whenever people are attacked as a class or defined group, regardless of whom they may be, the community as a whole is affected. "Because," he stated, "at the end of the day, people are still hurt," and it becomes his job to intervene.

The day's closing remarks were also delivered by Dean Woon. He urged that we abandon the traditional "melting pot" idea of America in favor of that of a "mosaic." While the mosaic may provide a more realistic picture of society, it also brings to the fore the problem of "exhaustion by diversity." He explained that budgets cannot possibly support the myriad necessary diversity programs, and the ensuing shortfalls inevitably lead to self-segregation and racial tension. There is reason to celebrate, however, as these tensions could not exist without diversity; we should therefore embrace the tensions as a sign of something positive. We departed shortly after his address, certainly no more prepared to STOP THE HATE, and uncertain of just how much we managed to stop that day. But we're in no place to criticize—we'd just be biased.

STOP THE HATE: Woon on Bias Protocols

Article Tools

Related Articles