Hate crimes in the US point to the depth of divisions plaguing American society

Donald Trump at a "Fighting Anti-Semitism in America Event" with Jewish leaders in Washington, on September 19. Reuters

America’s politics and system of governance are in crisis. This was made clear last week, before and during the US Senate Judiciary Committee’s hearing on hate crimes in the country.

The hearing – which was titled, “A threat to justice everywhere: stemming the tide of hate crimes in America” – was designed to examine the dramatic increase in hate crimes. The purpose was also to suggest a whole-of-government approach to deal with this problem.

The expert witnesses invited to present testimony were Kenneth Stern, director of the Bard Centre for the Study of Hate; Maya Berry, co-chair of the Hate Crimes Task Force at the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights (LCCHR) and executive director of the Arab American Institute; and Rabbi Mark Goldfeder, director of the National Jewish Advocacy Centre. Mr Stern and Ms Berry were invited by Democrats, while Mr Goldfeder was the pick of the Republican side.

Even before the day of the hearing, the depth of the divisions plaguing American society were evident.

Republicans objected that the hearings were designed to focus on hate crimes affecting all vulnerable communities in the US. What they wanted, instead, was a replication of the hearings that the GOP-led House had convened, ostensibly focused on anti-Semitism, but which strayed far afield. A few conservative American Jewish organisations were also troubled by this broader approach.

Republicans criticised Mr Stern, who – despite having been an official at the American Jewish Committee and the lead author of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s controversial definition of anti-Semitism – has since become a critic of the way this IHRA definition has been used to restrict free speech and its conflation of some legitimate criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism.

One side wanted to understand the problem of hate, while the other side seemed more intent on pouring petrol on the fire

Ms Berry is one of the leading researchers on hate crime data on the federal and state levels and the problems encountered in hate crime reporting. She was also the force behind the “Jabara-Heyer No Hate Act” designed to improve federal hate crime reporting. Though highly regarded for her advocacy for all affected communities through her work with LCCHR, she was seemingly targeted by Republicans for one simple reason: she is an Arab American who has been critical of Israeli policies and of efforts, domestically, to punish critics of those policies.

It was clear from the outset that all would not go well. Democrats made the case that their concern was the overall rise in hate crimes affecting multiple groups, while Republicans derided the entire effort as deliberately sidestepping the “real problem” – anti-Semitism.

For her part, Ms Berry meticulously detailed the statistics of the dramatic rise in recent years in hate crimes against each group: blacks, Latinos, Asians, Arabs, Jews, Muslims, LGBTQ and those with disabilities. She then outlined problems with underreporting, the difficulty in reconciling state and federal data, and made specific recommendations for improving reporting and enforcement of existing hate crime legislation.

Mr Stern insisted that universities have an obligation to protect all students and faculty against being “bullied, harassed, intimidated, threatened, or discriminated against”. He also cautioned Congress against codifying a broad definition of anti-Semitism.

He argued that instead of policing speech – prioritising one view over another, resulting in an “us versus them” polarisation – universities had the responsibility to protect speech and promote civil discourse by challenging students to understand diverse points of view and the people who hold these views. It is the more difficult path to pursue, but, in the end, it is the role of the university to educate not police or punish.

On the other hand, Mr Goldfeder agreed with Republicans that the hearing should have only focused on anti-Semitism, arguing that it is not only the most important challenge facing America today, but also that all other forms of hate emanate from it.

True to form, the Republicans who asked questions rejected the broad focus of the hearing. They delivered inflammatory remarks against students protesting the war in Gaza, charging that they were being funded or encouraged by Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran. Mr Goldfeder agreed saying that the students were either directly serving these entities or were their “useful idiots”.

Others harassed Ms Berry, demanding that she denounce Hamas and agree that statements like “intifada” or “from the river to the sea … ” were calls for genocide against Jews. Ms Berry calmly rejected this baiting, saying that she of course didn’t support Hamas as it is a “foreign terrorist organisation” and that she rejected all forms of violence. This, however, wasn’t enough for one senator, who continued to badger her, causing her to respond that she was only being asked these questions because she is an Arab-American woman.

She went on: “It’s regrettable that as I sit here today, I have experienced the very issue that we’re attempting to deal with today. This has been regrettably a real disappointment, but very much an indication of the danger to our democratic institutions that we’re in today.”

The audience of largely Arab and Jewish Americans, who had gathered to witness the hearing, instead of learning about the rise of hate and the crimes that might result from it, left with heightened passions. It was, as Ms Berry noted, disappointing and an indication of how broken America has become.

One side wanted to understand the problem of hate and what can be done to understand and arrest its growth, while the other side seemed more intent on pouring petrol on the fire and watching it burn – all for political gain.