Two faculty members honored by peers, another interviewed about a hate crime law
NOTE: Faculty, if you are interviewed and quoted by news media, or if your work has been cited, and you have an online link to the article or video, please let us know. Contact us at firstname.lastname@example.org.
CSUSB faculty members awarded during panel discussion centering on women of color in academia
High Desert Daily
May 11, 2018
Hosted by Cal State San Bernardino’s Women of Color in Academia, the May 11 event, “A Seat at the Table: Intersectionality in Higher Education,” featured a panel discussion focusing on women of color in higher education and two surprise faculty awards. The surprise awards were given to Jean Peacock and Eri Yasuhara, the two founders of CSUSB’s University Faculty Mentoring Network, for their service and mentorship.
Read the complete article at “Faculty members awarded during panel discussion centering on women of color in academia.”
CSUSB professor interviewed about rarely prosecuted state hate crime statute
The Press-Enterprise/Southern California News Group
May 11, 2018
Brian Levin, director of the Center for Hate and Extremism at CSUSB, is interviewed for an article about the case of a Riverside man accused of hanging a noose to intimidate his mixed-race neighbors. It was the first prosecution of the state anti-hate law in Inland Southern California since the Legislature added nooses to the statute nine years ago.
“It’s pretty rare as far as prosecuting it,” said Brian Levin, director of the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism at Cal State San Bernardino. “That law is not used that much relative to the other hate crime statutes we have in the state because it is so specific.”
The noose law is rooted in what the Legislature in 2009 wrote were almost 3,000 lynch-mob killings, mostly of blacks, between 1882 and 1930 in southern states, and the emotional trauma that seeing a noose can cause today.
Others have complained that charging someone with hanging a noose is a violation of the First Amendment protection of free speech. One court ruled that prosecutors must prove an intent to frighten or intimidate.
“A noose is considered a type of threat. That is why it passes constitutional muster,” Cal State’s Levin said.
Swastikas and burning crosses, unlike nooses, are not always considered threats, Levin said, as they also could be an expression of an ideology.
To prosecute those areas of the law, “You want to get to the implied threats rather than the ideology behind the threats,” Levin said.
Read the complete article at “Riverside man accused of hanging noose on fence to intimidate mixed-race neighbors.”