Editor:
When reading John Morley’s March 5 opinion column “Real Debate Over Hate Crime Bill is Impossible,” one sees it is devoid of reason, responsibility and the moral implications of inaction in the face of injustice.
First, in labeling hate crime legislation “unnecessary,” Mr. Morley denies the condition of a hate crime as unique. A hate crime is not a special consideration under the law, but instead, differentiates between a crime committed against a single person and a crime targeting a particular community based on race, ethnicity, gender, nationality, disability or sexual orientation.
Mr. Morley claims that the Legislature “has its hands full of thorny questions.” Could he possibly be referring to the monumental question plaguing our Legislature: Which vegetable will represent our glorious state?
Next, Mr. Morley irreverently attacks the legacy of Sen. Pete Suazo?a man who fought tooth and nail not only for his own constituency, but also for all minorities in Utah. Mr. Morley accuses the late senator and his wife of blatant race baiting, saying that minority issues are “easy prey for attention-hungry politicians like Suazo,” and that hate crime legislation “does nothing more than advance a personal agenda.” Mr. Morley talks of “reasonable debate,” and yet he advocates closing the door to political discourse where race relations and minority rights are of concern.
Finally, to top off his analysis, Mr. Morley advocates that since hate crime legislation will ultimately be ineffective in Utah, we ought to ignore the issue entirely.
It is our opinion that policymaking is not only about justifying “the use of limited time and money,” but is also about defining what is legally right and wrong. Morley’s claim that having hate crime legislation as a symbolic gesture will “do nothing” is misplaced. The law itself is symbolic in nature?people commit murder despite laws against it, but that doesn’t justify repealing those laws because they are ineffective. In short, legislators ought to fight for what is right, not for what is cost-effective.
Richard Jaramillo and Kenneth Wilks, Sophomores, Political Science