The United States Laws related to Hate Crime is instrumental in providing protection against crimes that are stimulated by animus or enmity against a certain class who are under the protection of the state. Hate crime laws in the United States vary in accordance with federal and state laws. However, the characteristic of protection is subjected towards disability, gender identity, sexual orientation, gender, nationality, ethnicity, religion, and race. In this context, it should be noted that hate crimes against homosexuals in colleges and universities are rising in the United States lately (Fletcher 85). Although hate crime is a setback for many students in college and universities, individuals who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender (LGBT), or, are perceived to be of such sexual orientation, are more likely to be exposed to a particularly difficult path. They are often at the receiving end of mockery, isolation, and sometimes even aggression, and the outcomes of such activities go well past upset sentiments and these types of physical aggression against homosexuals or hate crimes are discussed in this paper.
Hate crime and discrimination rooted in sexual orientation have emerged as an unrelenting and insidious concern in various schooling environments. For instance, as per the findings of a study conducted by the California Safe Schools Coalition, 7.5% of college and university students based in California, which amounts to in excess of 2000 students per year, are exposed to some form of harassment founded on actual or alleged sexual orientation (Fletcher 87). Various researches and studies, as documented by Kar, reveal that extensive maltreatment leads to perilous academic, health as well as safety implications for students. It may be said without any traces of doubt that every student possesses the right to study in an atmosphere that is conducive for their cognitive development and facilitates proper utilization of their full potential (Kar 167).
The Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education (GLSEN) Network’s college and universities environment researches divulge that a student’s academic performance is directly associated with in-school oppression. GLSEN, one of the foremost national education organizations concentrated on making certain that colleges and universities provide a safe environment for LGBT students. It commenced its extensive student surveying initiatives on a nationalized level in the year 2005, with the intention of providing a testimony of the daily experiences which the gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender students undergo at their own place of education (Dollard & Leonardson 214). Ever since 2003, the organization has intensely observed the linkage amid anti-gay aggravation and academic performance of the victims. The findings were consistent with the anticipated outcomes (Lamb 127). The findings also divulged that students who had to undergo repeated hate crimes also demonstrated a lesser probability of planning for education in long term. LGBT sections of students who faced considerable maltreatment were twice as prone to decide not to attend or drop out of college. Further, students who testified positively about being beleaguered also acquired significantly inferior grades than those LGBT students who faced lesser amounts of hate crime (Mukherjee 256).
Hate crime situations often arise for the reason that some students are not aware of GLBT contributions to history and moreover to the society itself. They are in most cases not aware of writers who might have had a GLTB sexual orientation or may not recognize the perspective of gay civil-rights matters. The substantiation for this fact is confirmed as 8 out of ten students in surveys reported no affirmative representation of GLBT contributions in history and neither do they receive such testimony at school. Stereotyping often brings about incidents indicative of harassment. Common illustrations of widespread stereotypes are that homosexual males exhibit more feministic characteristics than what is observed usually in male behavior and that most gay individuals are likely to have higher-pitched tones of speech than the supposed ‘normal.’ Lesbians are thought to be manlier, donning short hair with a stocky build. These common irrational perceptions pose a threat to individuals whose appearances match these perceptions (Dos 198).
It is obvious that lawsuits would be most competent only if the students and their parents vigilantly testify about each confrontation of hate crime and report them through meetings with the school authorities. It is a disheartening fact that a few college and university administrations show enthusiasm to safeguard their students from hate crime and discrimination more out of trepidation rather than a sense of decorum and sprite. However, in any case, school districts would sooner or later be obligated to safeguard all of their students irrespective of any grounds of discrimination. Anti-Discriminatory policies of the federal government, states, and regional authorities would compel school districts to take measures to save all of their students from the evils of hate crime (Deb 306). In this context, it has been said that sexually motivated hate crimes of gay or lesbian individuals may be considered to be a form of illegitimate sexual hate crime. For instance, directing sexually provoking activities towards a gay or lesbian student for corporeal sexual advances may be treated as an unlawful sexual hate crime (Roy 44).
Maltreatment and criminal conduct on grounds of genuine or supposed sexual orientation have been acknowledged as a major issue in a lot of colleges and universities. College and university administrations should reflect on implementing certain statements or strategies on the subject of hate crime on grounds of sexual orientation that would facilitate enhanced protection of students against violence and detrimental actions of this sort (Border 50). During early 1995, the Colorado Center of GLB Community Services had provided certain posters to the college and universities in the region. It recommended students who had apprehensions about their sexual orientation contact the organization. Fundamentalists such as ‘Focus on the Family’, a protestant Christian outfit immensely criticized such an initiative from close by Colorado Springs (Sen 287). They believed that the recommendations of the poster fostered the ‘homosexual’ way of life. They also felt concerned about the fact that the posters appeared to propose that students with some difficulties relating to their sexualities should get in touch with an external outfit in place of looking for support of their parents, teachers, and other close relations.
In conclusion, it can be stated that students who are aware of a school rule explicitly barring harassment on grounds of sexual orientation are 19% less prone to harassment rooted in sexual orientation and 25% more expected to feel secure in school. Students who report that their teachers intervene when they take notice of derision are 35% less liable to be beleaguered and 9% more expected to feel protected in school. Students of schools that have Gay-Straight Alliance groups are 16% less prone to aggravation and 23% more expected to feel secure in school (Stainton, Stenner, & Gleesen 271).
Works Cited
Border, Steve. GLBT: Fire of the Mind. Wellington: National Book Trust, 2005.
Deb, Jaydeb. Introduction to GLBT Revolutions. Bloemfontein: ABP Ltd, 2007.
Dos, Mark. Civil Rights Movements: A History. Christchurch: Alliance Publications, 2006.
Dollard, John & Leonardson, William. Aggression in Rights. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2008.
Fletcher, Ronald. Human Principals: Beliefs and Knowledge. Dunedin: Howard & Price, 2007.
Kar, Pratik. History of GLBT and Related Movements. Kolkata: Dasgupta & Chatterjee, 2005.
Lamb, Dave. Cult to Culture: The Development of Civilization. Wellington: National Book Trust, 2006.
Mukherjee, Sunil. International Social Strategies and Principals. Dunedin: IBL & Alliance Ltd, 2008.
Roy, Durga. Birth of Thought: The Evolving Intelligence; Part II. Auckland: HDT Ltd, 2006.
Sen, Sukumar. Difference between Thinking and Acting in Sociology. Bloemfontein: ABP Ltd, 2005.
Stainton, Roger, Pauline Stenner, and Kate Gleesen. Social Measures: A Critical Agenda. Cambridge: Polity Press, 2007.