|
|
|
Answer: The people of St. Paul* who believe their city’s reputation is marred by its reporting hate crime data to the FBI which is then made publicly available are as incorrect as the people in Minneapolis who believe their city’s reputation is improved by a lack of local hate crime reporting. Unfortunately hatred is ubiquitous, and one only has to examine the diverse locations where hate crimes have been reported to understand this (see our Trends).
St. Paul’s law enforcement leaders are to be commended, not criticized, for taking the mature stance of reporting that which is particularly ugly—hate crimes. Conversely, by not reporting them, the law enforcement leaders of Minneapolis in 2006 appeared to have something to hide from the world about their city. Hiding something rotten, however, doesn’t make it go away, and it doesn’t stop the stench. Ignoring problems permits them to worsen. In order to understand and solve a problem, it is necessary to collect accurate information about that problem. This is the reason law enforcement agencies collect general crime data, and why the ones with nothing to hide also accurately collect and report hate crime data. It would be better for America if all states, cities, towns, and colleges and universities collected and reported to the FBI hate crime data. With that information, we would be better equipped to fight hatred, prejudice, and intolerance, as well as the crimes that are spawned by them. It’s also noteworthy to point out that people who want their city or town to stop reporting hate crimes (by either law enforcement or the media or both) never call for a stop to general crime reporting. There seems to be something particularly shameful about hate crimes when they occur in that place we call home. Yet, there is a spirit of wanting and of working towards a better home when places take the non-defensive, truth-directed stance of collecting and reporting hate crime data. So, while St. Paul—like the rest of America—doesn’t feel proud about its hate crimes, that Twin City can take solace in knowing both that their city law enforcement leaders recognize hate crimes exist, and that these leaders do not ignore the problem or hide it from its people. Unlike Minneapolis’ 2006 policy of image-management, St. Paul’s policy of truth and transparency appears to be delivering a blow to hatred: based on information from the Southern Poverty Law Center, St. Paul had no active hate groups in 2004, 2005, 2006, or 2007, whereas Minneapolis has had an active hate group every year from 1998 through 2007 with the number of active hate crime groups increasing in that city in 2005, 2006 and 2007 compared to 1998 through 2004. Specifically, Minneapolis had one active hate group in 1998, two groups in 2005, and four active hate groups in 2007. It seems clear to us that hate groups believe that they have found a friend in Minneapolis. Thankfully, in 2007, Minneapolis started reporting hate crimes again.
|
 RETURN TO Q&A |