Hate Crime Statistics and 

Incidence in Virginia

An Advisory Memorandum of the 

Virginia Advisory Committee to the 

U.S. Commission on Civil Rights

November 2020
Acknowledgments

The Virginia Advisory Committee (Committee) thanks each of the speakers who 

presented to the Committee during their public meetings on this topic, and shared their 

personal stories and experiences. The Committee is also grateful to members of the public 

who spoke during the selected periods of public comment, and those who shared their 

testimony in writing. The Committee acknowledges the work of the 2015-2019 appointees 

of the Committee, who organized and heard the original testimony: K. Shiek Pal, Bruce 

N. Cameron, Sarah T. Combs, Vellie S. Dietrich-Hall, Claire G. Gastanaga, Patrick A. 

O’Reilly, Lorraine F. Waddill, Robert G. Bracknell, Angela C. Ciccolo, Edmund D. Cooke 

Jr., Toa Q. Do, Terrie E. Griffin, and Ryung Suh.

All Committee members participated in an initial review and summary of the testimony 

provided. This report was drafted and edited by a working group of Committee members, 

chaired by Danny Vargas. Jason Brennan served as lead author, with additional editing 

contributions from Ann Haney, Angela Ciccolo, and Brenda Abdelall. 

Advisory Committees to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights

By law, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights has established an advisory committee in 

each of the 50 states and the District of Columbia. The committees are composed of state 

citizens who serve without compensation. The committees advise the Commission of civil 

rights issues in their states that are within the Commission’s jurisdiction. They are 

authorized to advise the Commission in writing of any knowledge or information they 

have of any alleged deprivation of voting rights and alleged discrimination based on race, 

color, religion, sex, age, disability, national origin, or in the administration of justice; 

advise the Commission on matters of their state’s concern in the preparation of 

Commission reports to the President and the Congress; receive reports, suggestions, and 

recommendations from individuals, public officials, and representatives of public and 

private organizations to committee inquiries; forward advice and recommendations to 

the Commission, as requested; and observe any open hearing or conference conducted by 

the Commission in their states.
Virginia Advisory Committee to the 

U.S. Commission on Civil Rights

The Virginia Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights submits this advisory 

memorandum regarding hate crime statistics and incidence in the state. The Committee submits this 

memorandum as part of its responsibility to study and report on civil rights issues in Virginia. The 

contents of this memorandum are primarily based on testimony the Committee heard during public 

meetingsthe Committee held on Wednesday, May 16, 2018 via teleconference, and in-person on March 

29, 2019 in Washington, D.C. The Committee also includes related testimony submitted in writing 

during the relevant period of public comment.

This memorandum presents an overview of the testimony received, identifies primary findings as they 

emerged from this testimony, and offers recommendations for addressing areas ofrelated civil rights 

concerns. This report is intended to focus specifically on civil rights concerns regarding hate crime 

incidents in Virginia. While other important topics may have surfaced throughout the Committee’s 

inquiry, those matters that are outside the scope of this specific civil rights mandate are left for another 

discussion.

Virginia Advisory Committee to the 

U.S. Commission on Civil Rights

K. Shiek Pal, Chair, Virginia Advisory Committee, Arlington

Angela Ciccolo, Vice Chair, Ashburn

Arthur Rizer, Vice Chair, Alexandria

Raul Danny Vargas, Secretary, Herndon

Brenda Abdelall, Oakton

Maria Almond, Farmville

Jason Brennan, Fairfax

Edgardo Cortes, Springfield

Ann Haney, Charlottesville

William Hyde, Springfield

Lisalyn Jacobs, Arlington

Binh Nguyen, McLean

Ilya Shapiro, Falls Church

Andrew Wright, Arlington
3

Advisory Memorandum

To: The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights

From: The Virginia Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights

Date: September 2020

Subject: Hate Crime Statistics and Incidence in Virginia

In response to the August 11 and 12, 2017, Unite the Right Rally in Charlottesville, VA, and to news reports 

that hate crimes were increasing, 1 the Virginia Advisory Committee (hereafter Committee) convened two 

public meetings asking for expert testimony on bias incidents and hate crimes in the commonwealth and 

across the country. The meetings sought to identify the best practices used in defining, identifying, 

reporting, prosecuting, and preventing hate crimes in Virginia. The Committee solicited the expert 

opinions of academics, law enforcement officials, community representatives, and civil rights advocates. 

The Committee specifically sought to understand: 

A. whether there has been a statistically significant increase in hate crimes and anti-bias incidents 

in Virginia at the state or regional levels,

B. the nature and types of hate crimes/anti-bias incidents and the affected/targeted groups, 

C. any challenges or barriers that may prevent law enforcement from addressing hate crimes, 

including whether Virginia hate crime-related laws should be modified, and

D. best practices that law enforcement and communities should consider implementing in order to 

reduce the number of hate crimes and anti-bias incidents, and to accurately tabulate the 

statistics on such crimes.

This report summarizes the Committee’s findings, andincludes:

1. An account of why hate crimes is of special interest to the Committee and US Civil Rights 

Commission (hereafter Commission),

2. A brief overview of the expert testimony the Committee heard in 2018 and 2019,

3. An analysis of the problem of defining the concept of hate crimes and targeted groups,

4. An analysis of the problems of data collection and hate crime measurement,

5. An analysis of whether hate crimes are increasing,

6. A summary of expert testimony on other problems with data collection and measuring hate 

crimes, and 

7. summary of expert recommendations for best practices.

1 For instance, this news report claims that hate crimes increased from 137 in 2016 to 202 in 2017: 

https://www.wtkr.com/2019/04/30/hate-crimes-in-virginia-jump-almost-by-half/
4

1. Background

Virginia was the center of national attention in August 2017, when white nationalist Richard Spencer’s 

Unite the Right Rally in Charlottesville resulted in street fighting between alt-right white nationalists and 

counter-protesters. White supremacist James Fields, Jr., rammed his car into a crowd of counterprotestors, killing one person and injuring nineteen more. Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring 

further claimed that there was a rise in hate crimes in Virginia, and launched the No Hate VA campaign 

to raise awareness of and combat this trend. 2

According to the FBI and Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring, hate crimes are defined as “crimes 

committed against a person or property motivated in whole or in part by an offender’s bias against a 

race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, gender, or gender identity.” 3 Thus, establishing that a hate 

crime has been committed imposes a significant evidentiary burden. One must not only establish that a 

crime has been committed, but also must prove that the perpetrator committed the crime because of 

bias. 4 (See § 3 below.)

Hate crimes affect the broader community in ways other crimes do not. Democracies are committed to 

equality and inclusivity. Hate crimes both demonstrate and results from ongoing divisions and 

prejudices among the public. Hate crimes threaten to reduce inclusion, create mutual animosity and 

distrust, and impede the proper functioning of democratic government.

2. Overview of Testimony

The Committee sought testimony from a range of stakeholders, including members of federal and state 

law enforcement, academic researchers at Virginian and other universities, and representatives from 

various NGOs working on racial or identity issues. The Committee sought a diverse range of perspectives 

and methods, including testimony on theoretical, qualitative, and quantitative matters. Panelists were 

chosen to testify based upon their professional experience, academic research, subject matter expertise, 

and firsthand knowledge of the topics at hand. 

Experts included the regional director of the Anti-Defamation League; a statistician from the Bureau of 

Justice Statistics at the US Department of Justice; the Commonwealth Attorney for Charlottesville; a 

policy analyst at the Arab American Institute; a sociologist from Virginia Commonwealth University; the 

executive director of the Charlottesville Branch of Organizing Virginia; the head of outreach for the All 

Dulles Area Muslim Society; a law professor from Indiana University; a criminal justice professor from 

California State University at San Bernardino; a law professor from Georgetown University; the National 

Program Manager for Muslim, Arab, South Asian, Sikh and Hindu communities, at the US Department of 

Justice Community Relations Service; and the Dean of Criminal Justice at Northeastern University.

An attached addendum provides a thematic summary of each experts’ testimony. The Committee has 

not attempted to fact-check or verify these experts’ claims. Without discounting any testimony heard, 

2 https://www.oag.state.va.us/programs-initiatives/no-hate-va 3 https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/civil-rights/hate-crimes; https://www.oag.state.va.us/programs-initiatives/nohate-va 4 See e.g. The Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009, 18 U.S.C § 249 (a)(1)& 

(a)(2); Damage to Religious Property, Church Arson Prevention Act, 18 U.S.C. § 247; VA. CODE ANN. § 52-8.5(C).
5

we focus in this memorandum on testimony most directly relevant to our own stated goals of inquiry, 

listed as A-D above in the introduction. Some experts directly addressed our questions—such as 

whether there are measurable changes in hate crimes—while others testified about their organizations’ 

activities or provided anecdotal analysis. 

3. Obstacle and Issues in Defining Hate Crimes

Hate crimes are defined by a combination of action and motive. To qualify as a hate crime, an action 

must be a crime, independently defined. In addition, it has a mens rea or intent component: the crime 

must be substantively or primarily motivated by animus or bias against the victim’s indelible ethnic, 

racial, sexual, gender, or other legally-defined identity. According to the FBI, a hate crime can be 

explained generally as“...a traditional offense like murder, arson, or vandalism with an added element of 

bias.” 5 Federal hate crimes can be defined broadly as a “criminal offense against a person or property 

motivated in whole or in part by an offender’s bias against a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, 

ethnicity, gender, or gender identity.” 6 Specifically, federal hate crimes are defined by statute as 

offenses where a perpetrator willfully causes bodily injury or through use of fire or a dangerous weapon 

or explosive device, willfully causes or attempts to cause bodily injury to any person because of the 

victim’s actual or perceived race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, gender, gender identity, sexual 

orientation, or disability status. 7 Federal law also prohibits bias-based crimes against religious property 

or interference with the right to practice one’s religion. 8 Additional prohibited actions under federal 

statute is the use of force or threats of force to interfere with activities such as education, public 

accommodation, access to housing because of bias-based motivation. 9

The Commonwealth of Virginia similarly defines hate crimes. 10 The Commonwealth defines a Hate Crime 

as follows: 

"Hate crime" means (i) a criminal act committed against a person or his property with the specific 

intent of instilling fear or intimidation in the individual against whom the act is perpetrated because 

of race, religion, gender, disability, gender identity, sexual orientation, or ethnic or national origin 

or that is committed for the purpose of restraining that person from exercising his rights under the 

Constitution or laws of the Commonwealth or of the United States; (ii) any illegal act directed 

against any persons or their property because of those persons' race, religion, gender, disability, 

gender identity, sexual orientation, or ethnic or national origin; and (iii) all other incidents, as 

determined by law-enforcement authorities, intended to intimidate or harass any individual or 

5 What We Investigate; Hate Crimes,” Federal Bureau of Investigation, accessed November 9, 

2020,https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/civil-rights/hate-crimes; 6 Ibid. 

7 The Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009, 18 U.S.C § 249 (a)(1) & (a)(2).

8 18 U.S.C. § 247 (Damage to Religious Property and Obstruction of Persons in the Free Exercise of Religious 

Beliefs).

9 Id. at § 245(b)(2) (Federally Protected Activities); 42 U.S.C. § 3631 (Fair Housing Act’s criminal prohibition against 

interference with a housing right because of bias). 10 “No Hate VA,” Commonwealth of Virginia, accessed November 9, 2020, https://www.oag.state.va.us/programsinitiatives/no-hate-va; VA. CODE ANN. § 52-8.5(C).
6

group because of race, religion, gender, disability, gender identity, sexual orientation, or ethnic or 

national origin. 11

Virginia has only a few specific hate crime laws that it lists under Title 9, Chapter 9, Article 5 as 

“Activities Tending to Cause Violence.” They include wearing a mask in public12, burning a cross 13, 

burning an object 14, displaying a noose15, and placing swastikas on certain properties. 16 Physical assault, 

battery, murder, and other violent offenses, as well as various property crimes, can also be prosecuted 

as hate crimes if prosecutors can demonstrate the attacks were sufficiently motivated by racial or other 

demographic animus. Additionally, some states do not have stand-alone hate crime statutes, instead, 

hate crimes can be factors that a judge consider in the sentencing phase. 17 Accordingly, statisticsfrom 

differing states, districts, or jurisdictions are sometimes incommensurable. 18

A crime does not qualify as a hate crime merely because the perpetrator can be shown to have 

substantial bias, or even to subscribe to a hateful ideology. To illustrate, if a neo-Nazi were to assault a 

Jewish person, that would not automatically qualify as a hate crime. Instead, one must show that the 

attacker was specifically and substantially motivated to perform the attack out of demographic 

animus. 19

4. Obstacles and Issues in Measuring or Reporting Hate Crimes

Because of differing definitions of hate crimes among states, differing burdens of proof or evidence, 

differences in reporting rates, and other factors, it is often difficult or impossible to make proper crossstate comparisons regarding hate crime incidence. 20

Reporting and categorization of hate crimes is inconsistent across areas, even within a single state. 21

Prosecutors often decline to prosecute hate crimes because it is difficult to prove beyond a reasonable 

doubt that perpetrators were motivated by demographic animus. Attempting to prosecute a hate crime 

may cost prosecutor a conviction of a lesser, easier-to-prove crime. 22 Many suspected hate crimes are 

never prosecuted as such. Accordingly, relying on official numbers of convicted hate crimes likely 

understatesthe hate crime incidence.

11 VA. CODE ANN. § 52-8.5(C). 12 VA. CODE ANN. § 18.2-422. 13 VA. CODE ANN. § 18.2-423. 14 VA. CODE ANN. § 18.2-423.01. 15 VA. CODE ANN. § 18.2-423.2. 16 VA. CODE ANN. § 18.2-423.1; Platania Testimony, 2019 Transcript, Pg. 6, lines 7-12. 17 See, e.g., “State and Federal Hate Crime Laws in Ohio: Ethnic Intimidation, Enhancements & Elevated Penalties,” 

Friedman & Nemecek, LLC, accessed November 9, 2020, https://www.iannfriedman.com/blog/2019/june/stateand-federal-hate-crime-laws-in-ohio-ethnic/; See e.g. OHIO REV. CODE ANN § 2927.12, which provides for 

enhanced penalties for certain crimes if a defendant chooses a victim “by reason of the race, color, religion, or 

national origin of another person or group of persons.” 18 Oudekerk Testomony, 2019 Transcript, Pg. 32, lines 5-15. 19 Platania Testimony, 2019 Transcript, Pg. 6, lines 16-24. 20 Oudekerk Testimony, 2019 Transcript, Pg. 32, lines 5-15. 21 Hate crime laws vary widely across jurisdictions and some jurisdictions do not require data collection on hate 

crimes. “Hate Crimes, Laws and Policies,” Department of Justice, accessed November 10, 2020, 

https://www.justice.gov/hatecrimes/laws-and-policies. 22 Platania Testimony, 2019 Transcript, Pg. 6, lines 16-24.
7

Other counting methods introduce other problems. For instance, Barbara Oudekerk, a statistician for 

the Bureau of Justice Statistics at the US Department of Justice, testified that victims are free to report 

to police that they believe themselves to be victims of hate crimes. The percentage of victims who 

report this belief (as a percentage of the total number of hate crimes the Bureau of Justice Stastics

independently records) has been increasing in recent years, which may indicate greater awareness of 

hate crimes and hate crime laws, public belief that hate crimes are increasing, or increasingly willingness 

to report crimes as such. 23 The evidentiary burden for victims to report suspected hate crimes is much 

lower than the burden prosecutors face in convicting perpetrators. 24

Oudekerk testified that according to the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), between 2013 and 

2017, there was an annual average of 204,600 hate crimes. 25 Oudekerk testimony implied that between 

2009 and 2017, the overall incidence of hate crimes has decreased. 26 (See Fig. 1 below in §5.) In the 

most recent years, approximately half of these crimes were reported to the police. 27 Of these, 22% of 

victims told the police it was a hate crime. 28 Approximately 15,200 of these crimes were also identified 

by the police as a hate crime. 29

Experts largely agreed that there are no good and uniform cross-district statistics and, further, that 

official numbers depend heavily on who is counting hate crimes. Victims, social scientific researchers, 

prosecutors, government statisticians, and others face different burdens of proof, may be using 

different definitions, and may have different dispositions to classify specific incidents as hate crimes. 

Accordingly, while examining trends within a particular set of data is often useful, cross comparisons 

between sets of data are often not. 30 Further, it is difficult to say what the true incidence of hate crimes 

is anywhere within the US, because of these measurement and definitional problems.

5. Findings: Are Hate Crimes Increasing in Virginia?

The Committee wanted to ascertain whether there has been a statistically significant increase in hate 

crimes nation-wide and specifically in Virginia. 31 A majority of statistics presented reflected hate crimes 

at the national level; hate crime data specific to Virginia was limited, though is cited where available. 

23 Oudekerk Testimony, 2019 Transcript, Pg. 6, lines 21-22. 24 Oudekerk Testimony, 2019 Transcript, Pg. 10, lines 27-29. 25 Oudekerk Testimony, 2019 Transcript, Pg. 10, line 38 26 Oudekerk Testimony, 2019 Transcript, p. 10, lines 21-22, page 11, lines 17-29 and 27-29. Committee’s 

calculations. 

27 Oudekerk Testimony, 2019 Transcript, Pg. 10, line 39 28 Oudekerk Testimony, 2019 Transcript, Pg. 10, line 41 29 Oudekerk Testimony, 2019 Transcript, Pg. 11, line 3 30 Oudeker Testimony, 2019 Transcript, Pg. 32, lines 5-15.

31 Regarding the concept of “statistically significant”, in the most generic sense, an analyst examining yearly 

changes in a reported statistic would want to know whether these changes are likely to be real changes or rather 

result from counting errors and chance fluctuations. In a more precise sense, a correlation between two factors 

(for instance, between population density and crime victimization rates) is said to be statistically significant when 

the observed relationship is unlikely to result from chance. In the social and natural sciences, a threshold of “p < 

.05”—which means that the observed correlation has a less than 1 in 20 chance of being a coincidence—is 

commonly used. 
8

While many of the experts attested to raw statistical changes and offered hypotheses about causes 

behind these changes, none specifically addressed the statistical significance of these numbers. 32 Some 

analysts testified to number changes that are too dramatic to be mere counting errors, but then, as 

noted above, some such changes could result from changes in data collection methods, reporting rates, 

random fluctuations, or definitional changes.

With these caveats, we nevertheless note the following reports from different experts:

Doron Ezickson, Anti-Defamation League: The ADL's recent Audit of Anti-Semitic Incidents in the 

United States documented a 57% increase in the number of anti-Semitic incidents reported in 

2017, compared to 2016. That increase is the largest one-year increase in the 40 years that ADL 

has conducted this audit. With respect to hate crimes, specifically in 2017 the FBI documented a 

17% increase in hate crimes nationally, the third successive year of increase, and with a 58% 

increase in Virginia. 33

Barbara Oudekerk, Bureau of Justice Statistics: Hate crimes decreased from nearly 300,000 in 

2009 to under 200,000 in 2017. (See Figs. 1 and 2 below. Fig. 1 is taken from Oudekerk’s 

presentation to the Committee, while Fig. 2 is taken from her offices official public reports and 

includes some of the data from which she drew.)

Liz Coston, Virginia Commonwealth University: Attests that “the number of hate crime incidents 

reported by the FBI have been on the rise since 2014” but does not provide numbers for hate 

crimes in Virginia. 34

Brian Levin, Cal State, San Bernardino: Attests that hate crimes rose 12 percent in 38 cities and 

counties across the United States from 2016 to 2017, with many cities reporting increases yearly 

for four years. 35 In the ten largest cities in the U.S., hate crimes rose 12.5 percent and were the 

highest seen in a decade. 36 However, New York City and Chicago’s numbers are down. 37

Mary McCord, Georgetown University: Attests an “alarming” increase in hate crimes between 

2016 and 2017 but does not provide numbers. 38

The expert’s testimony is seemingly inconsistent. This results in part from using different databases, 

such as the FBI or BJS’s numbers, or because they report changes over different time intervals. 

Expert Barbara Oudekirk of the Bureau of Justice Statistics offered the following graph, Figure 1, on her 

March 29, 2019 testimony to the Committee. 39

32 For instance, neither the phrase “statistically significance” nor variations of it not appear in the 2019 expert 

testimony transcript. Some experts talk of “significant” changes but are not speaking in the technical sense here. 

33 Ezickson Testimony, 2019 Transcript, Pg. 36, lines 30-41. 34 Coston Testimony, 2019 Transcript, p. 34, lines 3-4. 35 Levin, Testimony, 2918 Transcript, Pg. 1, lines 39-4; Levin Testimony, 2018 Transcript, Pg. 2, lines 4-5. 36 Levin Testimony, 2018 Transcript, Pg. 2, lines 5-7. 37 Levin Testimony, 2018 Transcript, Pg. 2, lines 1-4. 38 McCord Testimony, 2019 Transcript, Pg. 22, lines 4-12. 39 https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/hcs1317pp.pdf. 
9

Fig. 1.

In addition, the BJS published the following data table (Fig 2) regarding total hate crime victimizations in 

the US. However, this data ends at 2015 and updated table is not available as of September 15, 2020. 40

40 https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/hcv0415.pdf.
10

Fig. 2.

The FBI maintains its own database of hated crimes, drawing on mostly voluntary reports from local 

enforcement agencies. Because this database relies on voluntary reporting, the number of reported 

incidents is far lower than the numbers given by the BJS, and the numbers may be less reliable. The 

following chart (Fig 3.) records the FBI statistics from 2007 to 2018.
11

Fig. 3. 41

6. Other Obstacles and Barriers to Better Law Enforcement and Prosecution of Hate Crimes

Here, we summarize remaining expert testimony on the obstacles and barriers law enforcement faces in 

identify and prosecuting hate crimes. 

• Many victims do not report hate crimes to police because they believe doing so will not 

help42 or the crime was not important enough to report. 43

• Law enforcement might not understand why victims do not report crimes. 44

• Victims do not report crimes if they lack trust in the police or the criminal justice process 45, 

or if they fear harassment from authorities. 46

41 Source: https://www.statista.com/chart/16100/total-number-of-hate-crime-incidents-recorded-by-the-fbi/. 

Numbers are taken from the FBI’s public database at https://ucr.fbi.gov/hate-crime. Fact-checked by Committee 

member Jason Brennan on Sep. 10, 2020. 42 Oedekerk Testimony, 2019 Transcript, page 17, lines 6-7. 43 Oudekerk Testimoney , 2019 Transcript, page 11, lines 10-11. 44 Ezickson Testimony, 2019 Transcript, Pg. 37, lines 30-32. 45 Ezickson Testimony, 2019 Transcript, Pg. 37, lines 3-5. 46 Coston Testimony, 2019 Transcript, Pg.34, lines 31-33.
12

• Participation in the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting System is generally voluntarily and so 

there is imperfect participation. (Some states require local districts to report certain crimes.)

• Identification of perpetrators of hate crimes is challenging because the perpetrator and 

victim have no prior relationship. 47

• A majority of police departmentslack a standardized method for identifying, investigating 

and responding to hate crimes. This may cause hate crimes to be underrecognizedand 

unreported. 48

• In some states, certain groups are not covered by protections against hate crimes. 49

• Police departments often lack expertsin hate crimes within their departments. Their officers 

do not remember how to report or classify hate crimes because they encounter such crimes

infrequently. 50

• Offenses that have hate as a motivation are often charged as regular felony offenses. 51 This 

makes convictions easier because the prosecutors need not prove racial, ethnic, or religious 

animus, which is difficult to do. 52

• In Virginia, certain definitions of hate crime and certain hate crime statutes predates the 

federal Hate Crime Statistics Act and has its own definition of hate crime. 53 The definition 

and range of criminal conduct covered by the Virginia code’s reporting requirement 54 is 

broader than the Virginia Criminal code’s hate crime penalty enhancement. 55

• Law enforcement officials are often biased. They often harass and mistreat minorities and 

others on the basis of their indelible identities. 56 Hate crime enforcement relies upon 

officers and officials who often share the demographic animus which hate crime legislation 

is meant to police. 

7. Recommendations for Best Practices

This is a summary of recommended best practices from the testifying experts, as well as from the 

Committee’s own analysis of their testimony. 

• There should be uniform data collection methods and definitions across states and districts.

o Standardize the reporting of hate crimes among police departments to produce more 

uniform identification, investigation and responses to hate crimes. 57

• Virginia should convene a statewide hate crime task force to ensure hate crime laws are 

effectively enforced, that crimes are accurately reported, that law enforcement and 

communities are sufficiently trained, and to maintain public awareness of hate crimes. 58

47 Bell Testimony, 2018 Transcript, Pg. 16, lines 17-21. 48 Bell Testimony, 2018 Transcript, Pg. 15, lines 15-16 and 18-22. 49 McDevitt testimony, p. 8, paragraph 1.

50 McDevitt testimony, p. 19, paragraph 5. 51 Platania Testimony, 2019 Transcript, Pg. 6, lines 24-27. 52 Platania Testimony, 2019 Transcript, Pg. 6, lines 33-35. 53 VA. CODE ANN. § 52-8.5 54 See generally Va. Code Ann. §18.2-57, 18.2-121, 18.2-422 – 18.2-423.2. 55 Wiggins Testimony, 2019 Transcript, Pg. 13, lines 35-49. 56 Johns Testimony, 2019 Transcript, Pg. 41, line 43 and Pg. 42, lines 1-3. 57 Bell Testimony, 2018 Transcript, Pg. 15, lines 15-16. 58 Ezickson Testimony, 2019 Transcript, Pg. 38, lines 1-8.
13

o The task force should consider whether diversity awareness education would benefit 

persons convicted of hate crimes in Virginia. If so, a curriculum should be developed. 59

• Create and fund special investigation units in police departments specifically trained to 

investigate hate crimes. 60

• Audit states or jurisdictions that have little to no reports of hate crimes to determine whether 

there is underreporting. 61

• Every police department should have an expert in hate crimes. 62, 63

• Encourage policies officers to have outreach at the local level to build trust with communities so 

that individuals have better trust in the system. 64

• Encourage police departments to use social media to track hate crimes. 65

• Conduct a comprehensive review of the relationship between state-level laws and their legal 

framework, and the federal standards and guidelines. 66

• Consider requiring states and local governments that receive federal grants to collect 

information on hate crimes policies and programs in place. 67

8. Addenda

Attached are transcripts of the 2018 and 2019 expert testimony to the Committee, as well as the 

Committee’s own thematic summary of this testimony.

59 Ezickson Testimony, 2019 Transcript, Pg. 38, lines 9-11. 60 Bell Testimony, 2018 Transcript, Pg. 16, 8-10, 35-36 and Pg 17, lines 1-3 61 Levin Testimony, 2018 Transcript, Pg. 19, lines 30-37 & pg. 20, lines 1-2. 62 Levin Testimony, 2018 Transcript, Pg. 10, lines 15-21. 63 McDevitt testimony, p. 9, paragraph 8. 64 McDevitt testimony, p. 8 paragraph 2-p. 9 paragraph 7. 65 McDevitt testimony, p. 13, paragraphs 8-9. 66 Wiggins Testimony, 2019 Transcript, Pg. 18, lines 16-20. 67 Wiggins Testimony, 2019 Transcript, Pg. 18, lines 33-37.
14

Virginia Advisory Committee to the 

United States Commission on Civil Rights

U. S. Commission on Civil Rights Contact

USCCR Contact Regional Programs Unit

 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights

 230 S. Dearborn, Suite 2120

 Chicago IL, 60604

 (312) 353-8311

This advisory memorandum is the work of the Virginia Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on 

Civil Rights. The memorandum, which may rely on studies and data generated by third parties, is not 

subject to an independent review by Commission staff. State Advisory Committee reports to the 

Commission are reviewed by Commission staff only for legal and procedural compliance with

Commission policies and procedures. State Advisory Committee reports are not subject to Commission

approval, fact-checking, or policy changes. The views expressed in this memorandum and the findings 

and recommendations contained herein are those of a majority of the State Advisory Committee members

and do not necessarily represent the views of the Commission or its individual members, nor do they

represent the policies of the U.S. Government.
8310490_05-16 (Completed 05/24/18)

Transcript by Rev.com

Page 1 of 25

Kathy: Today is Thursday, May 15th, 2018, 12 PM Eastern Standard. Welcome to a 

planning meeting of the Virginia Advisory Committee of the US Commission on 

Civil Rights. This call is being recorded on the call or staff of the commission and 

members of the Virginia Advisory Committee. Also, there may be members of 

the public on the call in a listen-only capacity for the duration of the meeting. It 

is now my pleasure to turn the meeting over to Ivy Davis. 

Ivy Davis: Good afternoon, everyone. We have a limited amount of time. So I'm just going 

to go through and say which members are on the call: Ruth Cameron, Sarah 

Combs, Claire Gastañaga, Terry Griffin, Ryung Suh, Lorraine Waddill, Angela 

Ciccolo, and Pat O’Reilly. Is there anyone I've missed? With that, I will turn it 

over to the chair, Shiek Pal.

Shiek Pal: Good afternoon. I welcome the members of the Virginia Advisory Committee to 

the US Commission on Civil Rights and any interested members of the public 

who may be on the call. On behalf of the committee, I extend my deepest 

appreciation to the experts who are with us today and who will be providing us 

with a national perspective on hate crimes. Joining us today are Professor Brian 

Levin, Director of the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism at California 

State University in San Bernardino, California, Dean Jack McDevitt, Director of 

the Institute on Race and Justice at Northeastern University in Boston, 

Massachusetts. Hopefully, we'll be joined in progress by Professor Janine Bowell 

of the Indiana University School of Law in Bloomington, Indiana.

Our committee will be continuing its hate crimes review at an in-person public 

meeting to be held in August. At that meeting, the committee will focus on 

Virginia's specific data and policies. We have a lot of ground to cover in a short 

amount of today. By agreement, each of our speakers will have up to 15 

minutes to make an opening statement. Because of our limited time, please 

understand that I will need to interrupt you if you go beyond the allotted time.

When all of your opening statements have concluded, you'll be asked to 

respond to any questions that our members may have. Let me stress that if you 

wish to respond to a question posed to a fellow presenter, please let me know. 

I'll introduce you. The committee is looking forward to your statements and will 

benefit greatly from your collective knowledge and responses. With that, I'd like 

to introduce Professor Levin for your opening statement.

Brian Levin: Thank you, members of the committee, for this opportunity to address you 

today about our latest research. I would also though be remiss if I didn't send a 

special congratulations to my dear friend, Jack McDevitt, who has been just a 

mentor to so many of us in this field. Jack, thank you so much. I'm going to talk 

about a few interrelated yet separate things. The first is our latest data, which is 

just out. What it shows is in the ten largest cities in the United States, hate 

crimes officially reported to police, this data is derived from the local police 

agencies, rose 12% in 38 cities and counties that we surveyed for 2017. The top 

ten, they rose a mere identical 12.5%.

APPENDIX A: TRANSCRIPT, May 16, 2018
8310490_05-16 (Completed 05/24/18)

Transcript by Rev.com

Page 2 of 25

However, there were some notable declines. New York City which hit a moping 

year-high in 2016 was down slightly. Chicago was down 14% to around 61 which 

is in a range that they've been in in the last few years. So Chicago has been 

elevated as well. But in any event, the major cities did report a fourth 

consecutive annual increase. In addition, we saw for the largest cities, the ten 

largest cities rather, the highest total in over a decade and the first time in 

sometime that we've seen them aggregate over 1,000. To put this in 

perspective, FBI showings for at least the first half of the year showed a nearly 

1% decrease in violent crime and about a 3% increase in property crime.

The city with the highest number of hate crimes were New York at 339, down 

2%. Los Angeles at 254, up 10.8%. Phoenix, 230, up 33%, and Washington DC, 

179, up to 67%. Boston, where my dear friend Jack is from, had 140, and that 

was down from about 143 in the year before. We also saw some notable 

examples of low reporting which is generally consistent with some issue related 

to policies, procedure, resources, and victim services. It was striking. Miami had 

none. Honolulu had one. Anaheim, California had one. There were other cities 

that also did not register a significant number of hate crimes. So I think there 

were two things. We've seen a rise. But the rise was not across the board. 

Of the 38 jurisdictions that we looked at, somewhat over half, I think about 54% 

give or take reported increases. The other thing that I think is noteworthy is a 

breakdown in reporting as illustrated by some of the cities that I just referenced. 

There were about 90 cities of over 1,000 that reported zero hate crimes in 2016. 

That's out of 307 cities of 100,000 or more. To break down by locality, and this is 

why I like doing this, there are national trends to be sure, but there are also 

local and regional trends which are important as well. In our report, we found 

that these did vary somewhat by the demographics and individual 

characteristics of each city. 

So for instance, New York City which is home to about one in six American Jews, 

by far the highest number of hate crimes. And again, another increase for 

antisemitic, there were 150. To put that in perspective, that number is more 

than the total hate crimes of all but about four cities in the United States. Los 

Angeles, the most targeted group were gays. Chicago, African-American and 

Jews were tied. Houston, they just listed religion. Philadelphia was race. Phoenix 

was anti-Black as was San Antonio.

Bottom line is the most common type of hate-biased categories that we saw in 

order were basically anti-Black, antisemitic, anti-gay, and anti-Latino, but there 

were wide variations. A lot of this I think revolves around demographic 

dynamics. We looked up estimates of Metropolitan areas that have for instance, 

larger gay populations. To be sure, certain cities for instance like Seattle had 

anti-LGBTQ as their number one group for instance. So there is some variation. 

But within the cities, the top three or I'm sorry, some combinations, AfricanAmericans, Jews, and gays constituted the top two positions of all but one of 

APPENDIX A: TRANSCRIPT, May 16, 2018
8310490_05-16 (Completed 05/24/18)

Transcript by Rev.com

Page 3 of 25

the ten largest cities. The one that didn't was San Antonio which is a bit of an 

outlier because it reported just a handful of hate crimes to begin with.

The next thing I'd like to talk about was something also that we found very 

interesting. Most of the cities were tracking for increases in 2017. But the 

election period of 2016 saw an explosion of hate crimes across the country 

except for certain jurisdictions in the mid-west, like Chicago. But in these places, 

we saw big, big increase. So in Boston, November 2016 was the worst month in 

two years that we had data for, for instance. LA had a significant increase. We 

could go on. But bottom line is the fourth quarter of 2016 saw a 26% increase, 

25.9% according to FBI over the previous fourth quarter.

So a lot of the cities that were edging for increases, some of them, like New York 

and Chicago which we're tracking for increases for instance, ended up with 

decreases, in New York in particular, because the increase the previous year was 

so high. November was the worst month in about nine years. That fourth 

quarter was I think the worst one since 2008. That November was the worst 

November since we had systematic record-keeping nationally since '92. 

Although Jack did a beautiful did in '90, and there was some data in '91, we 

generally in our sense, use '92 as the beginning.

So that was something that we found interesting. We also found in looking at 

other data, previously, we manually tried to sift through a whole variety of 

different data sets to see if we could find anti-Muslim hate crimes after the San 

Bernardino terrorist attack of December 2nd, 2015. Then five days later, the 

Muslim ban announcement which was rolled out on Twitter, on the internet and 

then with a speech on the evening of December 7th, 2015 in Rockville, South 

Carolina. We found significant increases above already elevated numbers after 

President Trump's, then Candidate Trump's Muslim ban announcement.

The FBI data now confirms that spike. So that was something. Conversely when 

President Bush spoke six days after 9/11 at the Islamic Center of Washington 

DC, hate crime dropped the next day by 2/3 and continued to drop. So it 

appears that political speech correlates to fluctuations at least in immediate 

ones with regard to hate crime. We also have seen a hate crime spike from 

catalytic events like terrorist attacks. Here's the interesting thing that came up 

at the last part of our research. 

Last week, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence released 

over 3,500 Facebook ads that were placed by the indited Russian internet 

research agency. This is hot off the presses. USA Today found a spike in racially 

divisive Facebook ad placements in the run up to the election. They tripled. 

There was a lag by one month of an increase, a significant explosion of hate 

crimes in the November election period. Now, because I have Jack on, I have to 

make sure I put these data limitations in there. 

APPENDIX A: TRANSCRIPT, May 16, 2018
8310490_05-16 (Completed 05/24/18)

Transcript by Rev.com

Page 4 of 25

We are not saying that this Russian ad placement caused this increase. There 

were certainly many factors. But I think it is something that must be examined, 

that there are three possibilities as me being a former cop. One, coincidence, I 

highly doubt that. Two, that the Russians' interference caused this. We just 

simply don't have data to confirm that. But I think the third possibility is the 

most likely. That is they were paying close attention to what divisions were 

taking place and what kinds of placements got particular traction. I think that's 

what happened. I think at least as far as my speculation on this is that they were 

paying close attention to various factors.

Like someone who saw the web reports saying that humidity would be at record 

lows then spread accelerants on the straw field next to the freeway. But in any 

event, that's where we were for 2017. 2018, we have a handful of jurisdictions 

all except Washington DC are significantly down. We are forecasting an increase 

for hate crime nationally when the FBI comes out with their data later this year. 

We are also forecasting a decrease but only for the first half of 2018 because of 

A, the limited number of jurisdictions that we have. B, the fact that we are in a 

very divided and conflictual time.

I also want to indicate one thing since this is Virginia. Post-Charlottesville, we 

saw a real fragmentation and disintegration of the alt-right's ability to work 

together. We don't really have the time to go into all that right now. But I think 

that's significant. Nevertheless, the negative stereotypes which label certain 

groups as legitimate targets for aggression are still out there, particularly antiMuslim sentiment for instance. Nevertheless, we also learned that hate crimes 

can increase even when negative sentiment doesn't.

Jews for instance in the social surveys, for instance like Pew, are very highly 

regarded. Yet nevertheless, there have been an increase in hate crimes. In 

particular, we have a whole variety of incidents that don't rise to criminality 

which are occurring in public spaces and online. It appears, at least from the 

research of my friends over at ADL that a lot of these antisemitic directed 

attacks come from a relatively small number of people. So bottom line, we now 

not only have to deal with fluctuations of hate crime based on factors like 

demographics, serial offenders, crime changes, and a myriad more.

We also are dealing with a systematic stealth warfare that is taking place by 

foreigners to further inflame and so discord. Those words are basically coming 

right out of the indictment that was put together this past February by the 

United States Department of Justice. I greatly appreciate the opportunity to 

address you today and I'm certainly willing to take any questions that you may 

have. I look forward to hearing my dear friend, Jack McDevitt's presentation 

now. 

Shiek Pal: Thank you very much. We will save questions for the end. Without further ado, 

Dean McDevitt, the mic is yours.

APPENDIX A: TRANSCRIPT, May 16, 2018
8310490_05-16 (Completed 05/24/18)

Transcript by Rev.com

Page 5 of 25

Jack McDevitt: Thanks very much. Thanks, Brian. It was great to hear you speak. Your work is so 

important because you're doing more timely collection of data than anyone else 

in the country, so I appreciate that. I'm going to talk a little bit about some of 

the background research, and just go over it fairly quickly. Then in the question 

and answer, I'd be happy to respond. My background is I've been working on 

this issue since the 1980s. I was part of the original team that collected, 

designed and collected the original data collection for the FBI. I've spoken in 

hundreds of settings around there and trained lots of police officers and written 

quite a bit about it. So I think that one thing is we have developed, Jack Levin 

and myself, have developed the typology of offenders that people have found 

useful. 

We did that based on data from the Boston Police Department. What we are 

able to do is find that there really were different kinds of motivations for hate 

crime offenders. That typology has been used across the world now. It's taught 

in the FBI Academy. It's taught in academies around the country. It's been 

taught in over 69 countries as one way. I don't know that it's perfect but it does 

serve some function. One of the things that it does is it helps law enforcement 

try identify how they might solve hate crime. 

I'll come back to that in a minute. So we identified four different categories of 

hate crime offenders. Let me stop for a second and say I would rather use the 

term bias crime but that force is left to bond. There are a number crimes 

committed by individuals across the United States that involve hate and are not 

the kind of incidents that we're talking about here. But because of so much 

legislation and data collection and stuff is using the term hate crime, sort of 

that's the crime category, but for what it's worth.

So we identified four categories of bias crime offenders. Thrill offenders, 

defensive offenders, retaliatory offenders, mission offenders. I can provide data 

on this to the commission. Thrill offenders are young people generally in a 

group. What they're doing is they're looking to have fun. They think it's fun to 

go beat somebody up because they're perceived to be gay or they beat 

somebody up because they're perceived to be a Muslim. 

So they travel in groups. They don't have a strong commitment to bias. They're 

sort of reacting as Brian said, to the culture all around. Our second group is 

defensive. These are people who are protecting their terf. Their terf could be 

their neighborhood or it could be their workplace or it could be their school and 

saying these are people who take offense when a person from a different ethnic 

or racial group moves into their neighborhood or comes to their workplace or 

attends their university or high school. They see themselves as defending 

something that's theirs. The third kind is retaliatory. These are people who feel 

that they are coming after someone who's done something to them. There's 

been a series of incidents. Something will happen. Then a group of people will 

say, "Okay. Well, this has happened to someone from our groups so we're going 

APPENDIX A: TRANSCRIPT, May 16, 2018
8310490_05-16 (Completed 05/24/18)

Transcript by Rev.com

Page 6 of 25

to go back and get somebody from their group." That is one set of folks that are 

involved in this. 

The final group is called mission. They're on a mission to change the world. 

These are the most dangerous but also the least common of the offender 

groups. These are the people that you read about. Brian helps to track which is 

people who are involved in organized hate activity. So it could be members of 

skinhead groups. It could be members of White supremacist groups, Christian 

identity groups, a whole variety of groups out there. They use the internet as a 

basis to consolidate power, to direct things. They're involved in some of the 

most dangerous incidents out there. Fortunately, they're the most rare. But 

they've adopted a policy of what's called legalist resistance which is they try not 

to get their fingers dirty after some work that was done by someone who 

probably lost, and then was able to sue and close a couple of these groups. 

They will spread their message of hate but try to have people who are not 

members of their organization act on it. That way, they can't be sued. So they go 

ahead and hold meetings. There are some tapes that the FBI has of them saying 

things like, "We don't advocate violence." Then after that's been said, then they 

promptly advocate violence for the next 90 minutes. Hopefully, someone in the 

audience will act on it. So those are the categories. The reason that I think it's 

been adopted by so many agencies, with law enforcement agencies, 

prosecutorial agencies, and social service agencies is it's going to help you to tell 

how do I solve this one. 

So for example, if you're talking about a crime that's committed for thrills and 

the victim tells you some of the characteristics like the kids, there was a group 

of kids. They came out of nowhere. I've never been seen them before. They 

used this store. I was coming out of a gay bar and they attacked me, the chances 

are that those kids who are involved are going to do some bragging because 

they think it's fun the next day in their high school or college.

If you go to those schools, you're going to hear from kids through things like 

teachers or SROs who's rumored to have been involved in the incident. By the 

same token, if it's a defensive hate crime, a family moves into a neighborhood 

and there were rocks thrown through their windows, it seems logical but police 

don't think this way sometimes, it's going to be somebody in the neighborhood 

who did it. Somebody didn't drive from two towns away to throw rocks through 

this family's window. It's generally someone who is standing on their front 

stoop, you can see the other person's home. One of the things that this typology 

allows police to do is to focus their investigation in one way or another. 

The other thing that I wanted to talk about is we're now in a process, Jack Levin 

and myself, of trying to identify some data to see if these categories are still the 

same. We created them in the 1990s. It still rings through in law enforcement 

but we think that some of them may have shifted in at least in the proportion. 

When we did our original study, about two-thirds of the hate crimes were 

APPENDIX A: TRANSCRIPT, May 16, 2018
8310490_05-16 (Completed 05/24/18)

Transcript by Rev.com

Page 7 of 25

committed by thrill offenders. A third of the hate crimes were committed by 

defensive and retaliatory offenders. Less than 4% were committed by mission 

offenders. 

We think that that has changed, that we have an increase in people who are 

defensive, who see themselves as protecting their country, their whatever, and 

maybe a decrease in some of the thrill. Unfortunately, an increase in the 

organized hate groups. We can talk more about how that works and how they 

get together and all of that because there is some good data on that. The other 

thing I wanted to talk about briefly is that Brian did a nice job of laying out 

where the trends are in hate crimes, at least in large cities in the United States.

One of the things is that hate crimes are different by the level of violence 

involved. I want to offer a caution and also give you some information. The two 

top groups that are most likely to involve a physical assault with injury are the 

LGBTQ community and the anti-Muslim hate crimes. Those victim groups are 

most likely to be beaten and have serious physical injury. On the other hand, 

antisemitic hate crimes have been ... Are notoriously using property. Part of that 

is that we can't tell who's Jewish walking down the street but we know that they 

go to their synagogue or they bury their dead in their cemetery. We can attack 

all Jews by attacking the synagogue or the cemetery.

There is some differences across the level of violence. The cautionary note I'd 

say is that as Brian indicated, we have a couple incidents in different cities that 

are assigned to move this way. For some reason, hate crimes have never used 

guns as a frequent weapon. They use rocks. They use sticks. They use bats. But 

they don't use guns. We're starting to see a little bit in certain places of an 

increase of guns being used. If that's switch is over, we see a qualitatively 

different hate crime outlook in the United States. If all you had to do is drive by 

a park where kids are playing basketball or a synagogue or a mosque and fire a 

gun into it, knowing that most of the people in there are going to belong to that 

group, I think the whole dynamic of this changes.

For years since we collected data, we haven't seen guns be used very often. 

Now in certain cities, we're starting to see an increase. I find it very frightening. 

So I was going to talk a little bit about we've done a lot of work on reporting. 

Brian did a really good job of showing you where there are bad reporting, where 

there is good reporting, where reporting is being done well. Reporting is 

important. I would say that from the commission's point of view, reporting is 

important because we got to help the victims. 

Brian and I like data. We love the data. We want the data to be highest quality. 

But in the end of the day, it has to be about helping victims. If victims don't 

come forward and tell somebody about what happened to them, we can't help 

them. So it's really important that while we talk about reporting in terms of 

data, it's really about how we can get victims assistance as they come forward 

and tell us about the crimes there.

APPENDIX A: TRANSCRIPT, May 16, 2018
8310490_05-16 (Completed 05/24/18)

Transcript by Rev.com

Page 8 of 25

Some of the big reasons, the Bureau of Justice Statics did the nice job of 

understanding why people don't report. Some of the big reasons are that they 

feel like no one cares, that they think the police are biased. If they go and tell, 

then the police are going to either ignore it or they're going to revictimize them. 

Then there's another complication which Brian referred to briefly is that there's 

no ... That groups aren't covered, all groups aren't covered in all states. So some 

states will cover areas like Brian is working with homelessness. Other people are 

working with mental illness. That won't be a category in one state but will be a 

category in another. So the states don't report it. So it gets complicated. That's 

part of the process. 

I'm going to wrap things up here by saying that increase reporting, the one thing 

we know is that outreach is the key. That if people have a relationship with even 

a single police officer or a prosecutor, they'll come forward and they'll tell 

people. But if they don't have a relationship with anyone, then they're very 

unlikely to do that. That only falls on the police. So I was interviewing a police 

chief one time. We were talking about it. He said, "Wow. I don't even know if I 

have any mosque in my town." He turned to his deputy and said, "Do we have 

any mosque?" The deputy said two. I thought if you don't even know you have 

them, you certainly don't have a relationship with them. 

In DC, we had a case where there was a tremendous liaison to the LGBT 

community in the police department. That person was transferred. They got 

promoted, great. But then the new person didn't do any outreach activities. The 

community started suffering and increase in hate crimes and not reporting it. 

There is some real things you can do from a policy perspective. Let me stop 

there, leave more time for questions. I hope that was helpful.

Shiek Pal: That was great. Thank you very much. Before we transition to the questions, I'd 

like to ask the operator whether anyone else has joined the call?

Ivy Davis: Kathy?

Shiek Pal: Has she dropped off?

Ivy Davis: Apparently.

Kathy: I'm so sorry, just Corine Sanders. 

Ivy Davis: Okay. Has anyone else joined the call, Kathy?

Kathy: Yes, Corine Sanders. 

Ivy Davis: Okay. Thank you. That's the NRO staff person.

Shiek Pal: Okay. 

APPENDIX A: TRANSCRIPT, May 16, 2018
8310490_05-16 (Completed 05/24/18)

Transcript by Rev.com

Page 9 of 25

Sarah Combs: Excuse me. Just for a second, for clarification. When she opens up her initial 

statement, she said Thursday May 18th. Does anybody pick that up instead of 

Wednesday the 16th?

Ivy Davis: We'll clarify that vary. We'll clarify that, okay? Thank you. Just a reminder that 

when you do speak, please identify yourself for the recording. Okay, Shiek.

Shiek Pal: Okay. We're going to transition into the Q&A portion of the call. Given that 

unfortunately, Professor Bowell is not able to join us, we actually have a little bit 

more time. Members, you'll have five minutes for your question and answer. At 

the end of that, if we still have time left, we'll do a second round. To get the ball 

rolling, I will ask the first question. Then after that, I will go alphabetically down 

the list of our members who are present. Again, keep in mind that the time 

allotment includes both the question and the answer. So the best use of the 

time is to actually ask the question. We will have opportunities later to make 

statements, so this is probably not the best use of that time. 

Having said that, my question goes to both of our presenters. First of all, thank 

you again for your excellent statements. My question is this. What 

recommendations would you recommend that this committee make the 

commission to ensure that hate crimes in Virginia are accurately reported and 

that there is effective prevention and enforcement? I know, Dean McDevitt, you 

touched a little bit on how to increase reporting, so if you could just elaborate 

more on that. But that question is actually for both of you. Thank you.

Jack McDevitt: Sure. Brian, do you want to take it first or do you want me to?

Brian Levin: You go first, Jack.

Jack McDevitt: Okay. We know that there's a lot of things you can do to increase reporting. As I 

said, you start with outreach and relationship building at the local level. It then 

has to be that at the police department level, you really need a two-tier 

response model. What I mean by that is hate crimes are rare events. Thank God, 

but they are rare. So the idea that every police officer is going to know what 

questions to ask to see whether an incident is a hate crime has been proven 

time and time again to not be effective.

So you need a trained expert in every police department. It doesn't mean they 

have to be dedicated to hate crimes full-time. But hate crime is one of their 

areas expertise. Then the responding officers and the rescuers department are 

told that if there is any indication of bias, refer it to the expert. The expert will 

do the investigation. That model is the most effective model.

Than what we have to do is, Brian hinted at this, for places that aren't doing a 

good job, we need to call them out. The ADL does a pretty good job of doing 

this, but if you have a major city or a city that has a pretty homogenous 

population and they're reporting zero hate crimes or one hate crime, then we 

APPENDIX A: TRANSCRIPT, May 16, 2018
8310490_05-16 (Completed 05/24/18)

Transcript by Rev.com

Page 10 of 25

need to say them, "You have to be doing something wrong." Victims aren't 

coming forward. We need to do a better job. So that will be my steps on 

reporting. 

Brian Levin: Thank you Jack. My answer would be very similar. In fact, I would refer you to 

two places. One would be the end of our current report which actually lists the 

recommendations federally from a consortium of about 85 different 

organizations. So I think that would be a good place to look as well, although 

that's geared more towards federal. I would also encourage you, interestingly 

enough, because like Jack's study, this has stood the test of time. 

One of the things I did decades ago was to go to different to cities and look at 

best practices. This became a journal article in the 1992, '93, it's like full '92, '93 

Stanford Law on Policy Review called Bias Crime, a Theoretical and Practical 

Overview. It goes over all these best practices, summarizing quite quickly, these 

include exactly what Jack said. Let me start with just a few pivotal things. 

One is what Jack was talking about, a biased liaison officer. This is something 

that we have in policing generally. There's someone who's tasked with a 

particular type of crime. Now, as the data would indicate, some places don't 

generate enough hate crime to maybe task someone to that full-time. But still 

to have someone who is the point person in that department, who also then 

acts as a spoke, not only with regard to the higher echelons of the department, 

but other government agencies as well as NGOs and advocacy groups. 

Model policies and procedure is really important, as well as a message from the 

top. Billy Johnston who is a beloved icon in our world who headed up the 

Boston Community Disorders unit which is their hate crime unit for sometime 

told me that it's really important to have these things. Also, as Jack said, having 

officers go out in the community so they're known entities and being able to use 

these other intermediate entities as conduits to get reports in and having an 

attitude that says, "We rather you report even if you're not sure if something is 

a crime or even a hate crime than not doing it."

Also, I think it's important to track non-criminal data. This is an important 

development. Jack and I are very much ensconced in the hate crime area. But 

what I think is that in certain areas, we're seeing hate incidents appear to 

increase more than hate crimes. Of course, because that data is much more a 

morph, it's an old page. It's hard to make period to period comparisons.

But nevertheless, Orange County, California for instance, in 2016, reported 

about a 40% increase in hate crimes. The Human Relations Commission though 

reported an over 70% increase in hate incidents. So I think it's important not 

necessarily for the police department to track this but for human relations 

agencies. Now, I think it's important that we fund human relations commissions 

throughout the state and throughout the country with community relations 

service. 

APPENDIX A: TRANSCRIPT, May 16, 2018
8310490_05-16 (Completed 05/24/18)

Transcript by Rev.com

Page 11 of 25

Lastly, I think that a message from the top is very important and some kind of 

sustained infrastructure. Previous, and I'm going to close it with this, previously, 

we had all 94 US attorney's offices have like hate crime task forces. They'd meet 

regularly with community people. Whoever is going to be spearheading that, 

whoever's going to be quarterbacking it can vary. But nevertheless, someone of 

high regard in that region who let's say quarterly gets together and meets with 

not only stakeholders but also other government agencies, etc. AdditionallyShiek Pal: Okay.

Brian Levin: I'm sorry. You have preferShiek Pal: I'm afraid my time's expired on this question. But thank you very much. That 

was great. Let me recognize Bruce Cameron.

Bruce Cameron: Yes. I have aShiek Pal: Bruce, do you have a question?

Bruce Cameron: I do. I have two questions for Professor Levin. You started out by saying that in 

2017, in the ten largest cities, there was approximately a 20% rise in hate 

crimes. What was the percentage of increase in the prior years? Do you know 

for example say, the prior four or five years?

Brian Levin: Absolutely. That is in our report. The prior years, and let me give them to you. 

I'm going to give you, if it's okay, for all the 38 cities, is that okay? Do you want 

the top ten? It's up to you?

Bruce Cameron: Well, let's start with the top ten if you've got that because that's the number 

that you used, the 12%.

Brian Levin: Yeah, sure. Absolutely. In 2014, there were 812 hate crimes in the top ten cities. 

That was an 18.7% increase over the previous year. In 2015, we had 912 hate 

crimes. That was a 12.3% increase over the previous years. In 2016, we had 923, 

a 1.2% increase. In 2017, we saw 1,038, just shy of a 12.5% increase. That being 

said, we're expecting at least for the first half of 2018 to see declines. The 

problem is we can't predict what's going to happen during a conflictual election 

season. So we're not doing full-year forecast for 2018.

Bruce Cameron: All right. It seems to me that there's a huge variation. You're telling me it went 

from almost 19% in 2014 to 1.2% in 2016. That seems to me that there's 

something else going on other than the incidents of hate crimes. It sounds like 

that has to do more with the reporting. 

Brian Levin: Well, it may sound like that but we don't have data on that except in 2015, the 

Bureau of Justice Statistics did in fact say that they saw in their victimization 

surveys an increase in victim reporting. But I don't think you can explain a way 

APPENDIX A: TRANSCRIPT, May 16, 2018
8310490_05-16 (Completed 05/24/18)

Transcript by Rev.com

Page 12 of 25

this increase is just on reporting. By the way, there are other structural factors 

as well. For instance, we saw big increases in places like San Jose in Philadelphia 

last year. But those cities also implemented new policies and procedures. 

So sometimes we will get reporting of that. Sometimes there will be policy 

changes in individual cities. But when we track like dozens and dozens of cities 

and we see certain kinds of trends, across that whole cohort, I don't think we 

can just say it's a change in the policy in a particular city. But I do think that 

increase reporting may very well play a factor in some of this. But I don't think 

you can explain away for instance, what we saw in that explosion in November, 

which is the worst November ever, just simply because of reporting. 

Bruce Cameron: My second area of question has to do with religion as a category of hate crime. 

You indicated, you mentioned religion. But you also mentioned that the top 

three are African-American, Jews, and gays. Do you make a distinction between 

hate crimes directed toward religion and hate crimes directed toward Jews?

Brian Levin: Absolutely. Absolutely.

Bruce Cameron: And why is that?

Brian Levin: I'm sorry, I don't understand the question. 

Bruce Cameron: Well, I don't understand why hate crimes directed toward people who are 

Jewish would be distinguished toward hate crimes toward religion, but I don't 

know about the reporting. I guess maybe the better question is this, what's the 

basis for you distinguishing between hate crimes directed toward religion and 

hate crimes directed toward Jews?

Brian Levin: Well, one of the subcategory of a larger category. Certain cities did not break 

down into subcategories, but here we had broad categories like religion. But 

most of the major ones like New York, and Chicago, and Los Angeles do break it 

down by those subcategories. So I process the information that's given me. If it's 

not broken down, we can't then say, well, that's just going to be we're going to 

put that in the Jewish category. But let me just speak more broadly and that is 

we've seen something fairly consistent. This is really interesting.

Hate crimes against Jews bottomed around 2014 according to the FBI, then they 

went up. Hate crimes against Muslims almost doubled from 2014 to 2016 but 

what I think is really interesting is the proportion of Muslims as hate crime 

victims hit a record in 2016 of 5% and anti-Muslim assault which Jack was 

referring to, actually hit a record in 2016 more so than what we saw in 2001.But 

Jews are about 11% of hate crimes nationally. They're about 2.1% of the 

population. Muslims are about 5%. They're about 1% of the population.

Shiek Pal: Sorry, I need toAPPENDIX A: TRANSCRIPT, May 16, 2018
8310490_05-16 (Completed 05/24/18)

Transcript by Rev.com

Page 13 of 25

Brian Levin: I'm sorry. Just one quick thing, and for only a handful of time since we've been 

collecting data, religion hate crimes have surpassed 20% in 2016.

Shiek Pal: Thank you. So slight change in the schedule. Apparently Professor Bowell is now 

available to join us. Is she on?

Ivy Davis: She's trying to join the call, Shieks. So perhaps the operator can tell us when 

she's joined the call. 

Shiek Pal: Okay. So in the interest of time, why don't ... Sorry?

Ivy Davis: I said it may take a minute for her to get into the call, the delay.

Shiek Pal: Okay. In that case, why don't we go ahead and let's do Angela's question. Then 

hopefully, by the time Angela's question is done, Professor Bowell will be lined 

up. We'll then do a 15-minute statement from Professor Bowell. Having said 

that, Angela?

Angela Ciccolo: Yes, thank you. Thank you very much. I want to thank the presenters for the 

excellent information on our call today. I was really interested in your 

comments about the spike of the activity, in hate crime activity as it correlated 

to Facebook posts. In this age where there is a cyber element to some of the 

bullying and abuse incidents we're seeing, I wondered if the presenters have 

any recommendations for our committee on how we might consider social 

media as it relates to the topic of hate crimes and tracking those incidents. 

Thank you. 

Jack McDevitt: Sure. I'll start. This is Jack McDevitt. What I would say is that we've seen an 

increase in the capacity of law enforcement agencies to use social media to 

monitor this kind of behavior. They're using it to monitor gangs, they're using it 

to monitor other kinds of social groups. This would be a place where paying 

attention to hate sites and paying attention to bullying sites, sites where people 

are being bullied electronically based on the characteristics that they have 

would be something that both schools for the bullying and police departments 

have the capacity. They didn't use to, but they're now developing enough 

strengths.

Unfortunately, it's coming out of their work in human trafficking and sex 

trafficking. But they're at least developing the strength to be able to get on the 

internet, know what things are, track them. I would encourage agencies to be 

paying attention to that as a new source of recruitment for people to be 

involved in and also a source of victimization from bullying right on up.

Brian Levin: My response would be two things. One, look at particular events in the town. 

For instance, Anaheim, there was a Klan rally. There was a lot of build up going 

into that Klan rally. Similar, there was basically a limited civil disorder in 

Sacramento, but police were able to monitor at least the run-up. There's a lot of 

APPENDIX A: TRANSCRIPT, May 16, 2018
8310490_05-16 (Completed 05/24/18)

Transcript by Rev.com

Page 14 of 25

information about events. The other thing I would say is researchers for 

instance in Los Angeles, are looking to see if social media activity correlates to 

actual increases in hate crime at the local level. We haven't seen the results on 

that yet. 

Kathy: Ms. Bowell has joined theAngela Ciccolo: Thank you very much.

Shiek Pal: Great. Thank you. So Professor Bowell has now joined us. 

Ivy Davis: Yes.

Shiek Pal: So what we're going to do is we're going to switch back to her. Professor Bowell 

you've got 15 minutes for a statement.

Janine Bowell: Wonderful. Thanks so much. Apologies for the delay. All right. I want to first talk 

about what hate crimes, what category into which hate crimes fall. I mentioned 

that I'd speak about the problem of hate crimes as low offense level crimes. By 

suggesting that they're low-level crimes, I'll use the term low-level several 

times. But I want you to understand that these are crimes. You've heard about 

this that are extremely traumatizing for victims, despite the fact that they fall 

into a low-offense level as part of the criminal law.

First, the vast majority of hate crimes are not serious offenses. Meaning they 

are not murders. They don't involve, they are unlikely to involve guns. Someone 

is unlikely to be dead. The way in which law enforcement officers treat these 

crimes is very important with respect to issues of offense. That's why it's 

important to think about their offense level. You should know that with respect 

to police departments, the research shows that the vast majority of low-level 

crimes, low-offense level crimes are not investigated in the slightest, meaning 

no victim gets a call. No perpetrator is sought at all. They're completely filed 

away.

To say that the vast majority of hate crimes are low-level crimes means that 

they will not be investigated and not addressed of course. I've said that hate 

crimes and I said this frequently in recent works, hate crimes need to be part of 

legislation so that they will be investigated, so that victims will receive some 

sort of services, so that perpetrators will be caught and know that they may not, 

they should not be repeating these crimes. My research has shown that there is 

a high level of repeat for hate crime, for hate crimes.

It may not be sort of repetition by the same offender, in some cases, it is. But 

there's lots of repeated hate crime. So when I last cataloged hate crimes, and 

these are hate crimes directed at individuals moving to White neighborhoods 

between 1990 and 2010, each individual target of hate crime had had several 

incidents directed at them before they elected to report it to a police or have 

APPENDIX A: TRANSCRIPT, May 16, 2018
8310490_05-16 (Completed 05/24/18)

Transcript by Rev.com

Page 15 of 25

some sort of legal intervention. In order to ... What prompted the legal 

intervention was the fact that the crimes grew more serious. 

For instance, they might first have some sort of vandalism, then a low-level 

assault. Then the individual might have a cross burned on their lawn. It's only at 

that last incident that they would end up calling the police. So there's a problem 

in part with issues of reporting. Occasionally, individuals don't know that these 

incidents are actually hate crimes. These are actually criminal incidents. That's 

just because individuals are unclear about what the criminal law looks like in 

this context.

Second, I'll move onto what police departments do in addressing hate crimes. 

There's several different approaches that the police department take to 

addressing hate crimes. Again, you may see this in the data. That's why the data 

shows that large numbers, I believe it's around 80% of police departments in the 

United States report that not a single hate crime occurred in their jurisdiction. 

That's in part because police departments have very different approaches to 

identifying, investigating, and responding to hate crimes. 

I will describe each of the different categories of ways in which departments 

respond. I'll do it with respect to size, meaning what do the vast majority of 

departments in the country do. So the first, the vast majority of departments in 

the country have no particular approach to dealing with hate crimes. Police 

departments are divided into geographic districts. So when a hate crime occurs 

in that particular district, if it is noticed or recognized, and in the vast majority of 

cases, it is not. 

But if it is recognized, the detectives who are assigned to investigate everything 

in the geographic district will largely not investigate it. They will say, "All right. 

This is a low-level crime. I'm going to treat it like I treat the rest of low-level 

crime. This is just a vandalism." So a hate crime would be treated just like a 

vandalism. So your garage defaced with slurs is just a vandalism. So this is how 

the vast majority of hate crimes is treated in this country, assigned, if it even 

gets assigned to a district, a detective in the district, it just not dealt with at all. 

A second approach that happens in fewer numbers of police departments, a 

hate crime will be assigned to some sort of special investigations unit, meaning 

an investigation unit that deals with particular types of crime. Not hate crime, I'll 

talk about hate crime units which are the rarest approach to dealing with hate 

crimes. These are detectives who may investigate not homicide, but other sorts 

of crimes. They can do computer crimes or other sort of crimes. They're called 

special investigations. Those detectives investigate all of the hate crimes and the 

other categories that fall into this, their jurisdiction. So they may follow up. 

The data on how well these specialized detectives do is not especially good 

because hate crimes are not all of their purview. They do other sorts of 

specialized crimes. One of the studies that I've read in this context suggest that 

APPENDIX A: TRANSCRIPT, May 16, 2018
8310490_05-16 (Completed 05/24/18)

Transcript by Rev.com

Page 16 of 25

they may be using speech incorrectly, their first amendment protections that 

may be implicated when detective investigate hate crimes. Detectives in this 

context may be not respecting the first amendment appropriately. At the other 

end of the spectrum, detectives who are investigating using generalized special 

investigations sort of units may be dismissing hate crimes, in part because they 

don't have the experience in this context to recognize patterns and recognize 

when they should be following up and the precise ways in which to follow up. 

I'm going to move now to the single best way of protecting victims in this 

context, victims who have been targeted by hate crime. Unfortunately, this is 

the rarest type of police department approach. These are hate crime units. 

These are specialized department-wide units focused entirely on the 

investigation of hate crime. These units are responsible for investigating all of 

the hate crimes that occur in a particular type or in a city. So they develop, they 

are able to develop expertise around hate crimes. They are able to attend 

specialized trainings and are able to focus on appropriate procedures for dealing 

with hate crime.

Hate crimes are actually harder to investigate than other sorts of crimes. In 

other sorts of crimes, perpetrators and victims are known to each other, maybe 

known to each other, are likely to be known to each other. This is not the case 

frequently in the context of hate crimes. So they are simply harder to 

investigate on that front, on identifying perpetrators. They are harder to 

investigate in the context of identifying bias motivation. There are as I noted, 

specific legal issues, first amendment-related issues. There are also issues 

involving identifying bias motivation. Is it bias motivation or is it something else? 

Is there a conflict between the perpetrator and the victim that actually led the 

individual to commit the crime?

I studied a specialized hate crime unit. I found that the detectives there were 

able through investigating lots and lots of hate crimes to develop a way of 

separating crimes work that were not bias-motivated from crimes that were 

bias-motivated. They did it in a way that adequately identified bias motivation, 

provided services to victims, and also protected the first amendment. They were 

able to separate non-bias motivated crimes from the bias-motivated crimes and 

provide the specialized support you need to offer to prosecutors who end up 

prosecuting these types of crimes.

Hate crime units provide the most comprehensive support for victims of biasmotivated crimes. They are however, expensive. They cost money. You need a 

dedicated unit that only focuses on hate crimes. The best units have detectives, 

are specialized detectives units. They have detectives of different ethnicities. 

The unit that I studied was quite large in a large city, was quite large, and had 

detectives that were Asian-American, African-American, Latino, and of course 

White in the unit.

Shiek Pal: Professor Bowell, you have one minute.

APPENDIX A: TRANSCRIPT, May 16, 2018
8310490_05-16 (Completed 05/24/18)

Transcript by Rev.com

Page 17 of 25

Janine Bowell: All of these detectives were able to adequately support victims. Finally, best 

practices, best practices to adequately support hate crime units victims involve 

hate crime units, right, the creation of hate crime units. Borrowing that, the 

police chief needs to support, adequately support the investigation of hate 

crime, providing training to any detectives who are responsible for investigating 

hate crime and recognize that having hate crime in the city is a good thing 

rather than a bad thing. I'll stop there.

Shiek Pal: Great. Thank you. In the interest of time, we're going to jump right back into 

questions. We left off with Sarah Combs. Sarah, do you have a question?

Sarah Combs: Yes. I just have one. I suppose any of the speakers could handle this one. I'm 

wondering that with the increase in hate crimes committed by people in the 

public, whether there is a parallel rise in the use of excessive force by police 

officers? I guess unarmed African-Americans. I'm thinking about the incident of 

the officer who choked a Black man at a Waffle House in North Carolina last 

week. So I guess I'm thinking that since our police officers are coming from our 

level talk relations, that if there is kind of a rise in hate incidents among the 

population if there is also this kind of behavior in the police departments on the 

rise. 

Shiek Pal: Can any of our presenters respond to that question?

Jack McDevitt: Sorry. This is Jack McDevitt. I was on mute. Two things, there's been some kind 

of decent research at Harvard and by Jeff Alfred on the use of force by police 

officers and being particularly targeting African-American or Latino males. What 

we've seen is, what that research shows is an increase in use of force against 

African-American and Latinos but not a significant increase in fatalities. So that 

while those fatalities are the things that drive public policy, and we're all most 

concerned with, we don't see a statistical increase in fatalities but we do see it 

in overall use of force targeting African-Americans, Latino males, if that's 

helpful. Yes, you're right. Police officers carry the same biases as everybody else 

in the population does, conscious and unconscious. 

Shiek Pal: Thank you. Claire Gastañaga.

Claire G: Hi. This is Claire Gastañaga. Jack, during your presentation, you said at one point 

that you could talk a little bit more about how hate groups organize and how 

they get together. I wondered if you might be willing to do that for me at this 

point.

Jack McDevitt: Of course, sure. The thing that's changed about hate groups is that in the 80s 

and 90s, when Brian and I started this, you had to find somebody who shared 

your biases. It was hard to find. So you could get recruited into skinhead groups 

or whatever. Today, it's a clique. It's many many websites that you could pick 

any group you want that you think you have ill feelings towards. You could find 

a website that's going to show other people who share your biases. 

APPENDIX A: TRANSCRIPT, May 16, 2018
8310490_05-16 (Completed 05/24/18)

Transcript by Rev.com

Page 18 of 25

Out of those gatherings, those electronic gatherings, we're seeing groups form. 

We're seeing groups set dates to get together. We're seeing groups coalesce. 

But it's coming out of that, that cyberspace. It is a place where they still have 

this idea that some people are going to say things and not directly advocate 

violence, and hope that other people will. The offender, like Timothy McBay in 

Oklahoma City, they see themselves as heroes. They think everybody shares 

their bias, but they're the ones who act on it. So it's a very difficult thing. But it 

is something that Brian's group, the Southern Poverty Law Center, a variety, ADL 

are all doing a much better job of tracking that activity online. 

Claire G: As a followup, this is Claire Gastañaga again. Would you say that there are or 

there are not significant distinctions between the radicalization process whether 

it's rips in the blood or F13 or the alt-right or other extremist groups, do they all 

have common threads and modalities that go across all the kinds of groups that 

are getting together?

Jack McDevitt: Yes, they do. They're looking at people in marginalized groups. They're not 

looking at people who are very successful as the members they're trying to 

recruit. They recruit them with the same kind of messages that your life is a 

mess because of something some other groups are doing. So you do see it. I 

mean, there's obviously subtle distinctions. Gangs are terf-based. They recruit, 

they're more than online. But if you're talking about radicalized individuals, then 

members of some of the organized hate groups you find in very similar patterns.

Brian Levin: Yes. We're seeing people who are self-radicalizing. We look at folks like Dylann 

Roof and others. One of the things that I think is really scary today is that we 

now have the most reversed threat matrix with regard to extremists. These 

extremists are much more likely to show up in the data relating to serious 

crimes like hate homicide. They're much more represented with that. 

Just lastly, also people are mixing ideologies along with mixing ideologies with 

personal and social frustrations. So they may act out violently but their models 

may be mixed or not readily apparent because they're dining from a buffet of 

hatred on the internet, some of which are working in the Socratic than hooping.

Shiek Pal: Thank you. A quick question before we move to our next member. In the 

interest of time, would our presenters have an extra five or ten minutes to stay 

on? I want to make sure everybody gets their question in and we're running a 

little over. So if you have five or ten minutes, I appreciate if you could stay on. 

Does that work?

Janine Bowell: Absolutely. 

Jack McDevitt: Fine with me. 

Brian Levin: Sure. Yep.

APPENDIX A: TRANSCRIPT, May 16, 2018
8310490_05-16 (Completed 05/24/18)

Transcript by Rev.com

Page 19 of 25

Shiek Pal: Excellent. Thank you. Terrie Griffin, your question.

Terrie Griffin: Hi. I'd like to first thank the presenters for the information they've provided us 

today. My question goes to you, dean, I think I understood you to say the 

development of the typology of offenders or bias crime offenders was 

developed in what, 1990s. 1990s? Is that even correct? 

Jack McDevitt: Yes, 1990s.

Terrie Griffin: Well, if that, and coupled with the fact that I believe what Janine said, over 80% 

of police department have not reported as hate crime. Is there no adoption of 

the typology within the police departments across the country so that they 

might know how to categorize crimes when they occur? That's my first question. 

Jack McDevitt: Sure. Again, this is Jack McDevitt. I think that the unfortunate thing, and Janine's 

done a lot of work on this is that people are exposed to the typology in the 

police academy. Then they don't come across those crimes very often. They are 

low level of seriousness. So the fact is that that's one of the things that gets 

forgotten. Unless you do what we had talked about as the two-tier approach, 

what Janine talked about as having a specialized unit, a specialized officer who's 

trained, then it gets reinforced in the officers that yeah, this is something, this is 

one I should be asking. You ask, "Has anything happened to you that was 

unusual like you got a call in the middle of the night?" Because as Janine said, 

these things escalate. They start by harassing you and then they go up higher. 

So it's important that police department have this infrastructure that supports 

this.

Janine Bowell: And againTerrie Griffin: Thank you. My second que ... I'm sorry. Go ahead. 

Janine Bowell: I was just going to say, there is no incentive to provide additional training or 

specialization to law enforcement officers if they're just going to have the 

regular officer who's a detective investigate all sort of the hate crimes that 

occur in their geographic area.

Terrie Griffin: Right. That was going to be my second question.

Brian Levin: Brian Levin here. I'm sorry, just one quick thing. Here in California, we found 

about half a dozen counties, in mostly northern California that hadn't reported a 

hate crime for years. Associated Press did a study, found that there were about 

16 or 17 states, 25% of agencies didn't report a hate crime for at least half a 

dozen years. What we ended up asking the legislature to do was to do an audit 

where they took about a third of the third agencies and ask them whether they 

had policies, procedures, what were they doing, that kind of thing. Then they 

had deep dives with about maybe a half dozen or less where they actually are 

APPENDIX A: TRANSCRIPT, May 16, 2018
8310490_05-16 (Completed 05/24/18)

Transcript by Rev.com

Page 20 of 25

going to have site visits. That might be something for various states to consider 

as well. 

Terrie Griffin: Okay. My second question has to do with that very thing in terms of training. 

How might we offer that as a recommendation in Virginia to include it not just 

within the academy, the initial training in the academy, but as an ongoing 

opportunity for additional education. Is that something that we could suggest? I 

guess the reporting would drive that. If there's not a significant report, I would 

say they probably would not be the need for investing in additional training.

Janine Bowell: If you could communicate the message that having hate crime reports in your 

particular jurisdiction is not a bad thing, it's actually a good thing, it shows that 

you are investigating crime that needs to be investigated, that might go aways 

to pushing police departments to care about this sort of crime. Police 

departments can care about this sort of crime irrespective of whether there is 

even a law.

For instance, I was in a university town in a state without hate crime legislation. 

Indiana does not have hate crime legislation. But the local police chief cares 

about having hate crimes reported. He cares about the report, right. He wants 

to capture as much activity as is happening in the particular, in the town. So he's 

communicated in a variety of ways that listen, we want you to report hate 

crimes to us. There are other things that law enforcement can do to support 

hate crime victims that doesn't necessarily require prosecution under a hate 

crime law.

Shiek Pal: Thank you. Pat O'Reilly. Pat?

Pat O’Reilly: Yes.

Shiek Pal: Do you have a question?

Pat O’Reilly: Just a little clarification here. You caught me in the middle of a mouthful. I heard 

the term significant used repeatedly when we're talking about increases. Is that 

term being used statistical way or is it being used in, it's just the normal use of 

the word?

Brian Levin: Brian Levin. 

Shiek Pal: I think that's probably you, Brian.

Brian Levin: What I like to do and I highly encourage you to read our reports. The numbers 

and percentages are all there. They're broken down for about seven or eight 

years. You can look at these individual trends as well as looking at who gets 

attacked and what proportion. Hate crimes tend to occur, at least reported hate 

crimes in relatively small numbers. So that's something that's important.

APPENDIX A: TRANSCRIPT, May 16, 2018
8310490_05-16 (Completed 05/24/18)

Transcript by Rev.com

Page 21 of 25

But we're also seeing large cities. I think it's important to point this out. Cities 

like Houston and Dallas, which are reporting under 20 hate crimes. Orlando, 

five. Miami, zero. So I encourage you to look at the reports and look at the 

reports and the tables in there. They are very data-rich. That way, you won't 

have to rely necessarily on a particular descriptor and whether or not it's 

vernacular or a term of margin. The data is all there.

Pat O’Reilly: I understand that. I think this is highlighting the problem that I hear everyone 

saying. The reporting of quote, "hate crimes" is pretty shotty. Is that what I'm 

hearing?

Brian Levin: It varies by jurisdiction. Not in Eugena, Oregon, not in New York City, not in 

Boston, not in Seattle.

Pat O’Reilly: Okay. But it's still a small number, correct?

Brian Levin: Small relative to what?

Pat O’Reilly: Well, for example, in the State of Virginia, that's less than a percent of all the 

crimes committed. 

Brian Levin: Right. But the Bureau of Justice Statistics, and there may be people who have 

difficulties with their victimization surveys, but they estimate that 3.7% of all 

violent crimes are hate crimes. We know that there is massive under reporting. 

They estimated about 208,00 hate crimes in their 2015 report during a year 

when we only saw reported hate crimes to the FBI, be a tad over 5,800. But 

what I would also encourage you, and Jack wrote about this, not all crimes are 

the same with regard to a community impact. 

The supreme court piece I wrote for Wisconsin versus Mitchell, the hate crime 

case, we showed and the supreme court acknowledges that, that unlike certain 

other types of crimes, there is a risk of a cycle of retaliatory violence. In 

addition, people will change their behaviors who are secondary victims. There's 

people who weren't the direct victims, they'll change their behaviors based on 

the fact that someone is targeting an African-American family in a particular 

community. So when we look at numbers, we look at reported versus nonreported. We also look at victimization surveys. We also look at the impact of 

crime as well. That's something the supreme court said in Cocher is an 

important factor with regard to punishment.

Pat O’Reilly: Okay. I think that covers what I need to know.

Shiek Pal: Thank you.

Brian Levin: One last point. We could only find in the last couple of years a little over two 

dozen confirmed or suspected examples of false reports. However, when they 

get publicized, it goes all over. But we only found just in the last couple of years, 

APPENDIX A: TRANSCRIPT, May 16, 2018
8310490_05-16 (Completed 05/24/18)

Transcript by Rev.com

Page 22 of 25

a little over two dozen when we had well over 10,000 hate crimes reported to 

the FBI Uniform Crime Reporting Program. 

Shiek Pal: Thanks, Professor. Ryung Suh. 

Ryung Suh: Hi. Well, first of all, thank you to the presenters. My question actually just 

relates to more of an anecdotal observation that I've made within my own 

university studying. There has been say kind of a increase in perceived racial 

tension amongst some of our students and a definite increase in the number of 

hate speech that's been scribbled on walls and bathroom stalls, and things of 

that nature, especially over the past 18 months or so. In the research that you 

all do, do any of the data kind of provide insight into trends inside academic 

institutions or school settings over the past few years?

Jack McDevitt: This is Jack McDevitt. I'll start. I think everybody could speak to this. But yes, the 

third most frequent place where a hate crime occurs in the United States is in a 

school setting. That includes high schools and universities. The university data 

that's been put out has seen a dramatic increase in hate crimes associated with 

the immigrant rhetoric, associated with the elections. As you know, in your 

campuses, like on ours, we do programming with faculty members to tell them 

how they can deal with students in class who are now feeling threatened in 

ways that they weren't threatened before. 

The character and the culture on college campuses has changed. We've seen a 

increase in anti or hate-motivated behavior from certain groups on campuses. 

Unfortunately, it should be a place where we don't see that but it's playing itself 

out on our campuses across the country.

Brian Levin: Brian Levin here. Several data showed again that similar increase that I talked 

about in the fall of 2016. So that's something Jack aptly spoke about the 

proportion of schools being targeted. Another thing that I think is important to 

point out when we're talking about at least universities, is that many hate 

groups are targeting universities not only to have incendiary and racist speakers 

come in but also a group like Identity Evropa which showed up at Charlottesville 

is going around the country and putting flyers on various campuses including in 

Virginia and here in California. 

So they're trying to incite these kind of things on campus. Also remember too 

their issues with regard to conflict when controversial speakers come to campus 

as well. In California, we saw in the 2016 to 2017 season about a doubling of 

violent public demonstrations. Many of them involve college settings.

Janine Bowell: We saw it in Indiana. Identity Evropa came to Bloomington, Indiana, postered 

ethnic studies, faculty doors and ethnic studies, also in the law school, posters 

all over the wall and as a way of recruiting, bragged about it on their Facebook. 

So for instance, my door was postered, was flyered. A picture of my door 

appeared on their webpage bragging about having done this on the Superbowl. 

APPENDIX A: TRANSCRIPT, May 16, 2018
8310490_05-16 (Completed 05/24/18)

Transcript by Rev.com

Page 23 of 25

Brian Levin: We've seen an explosion of this. Over the last couple of years, we've seen an 

explosion of this. 

Ryung Suh: Just a quick followup question then, so I think the approach that our faculty and 

leadership has taken as to have some townhalls, have some leadership 

pronouncements condemning the actions, supporting some diversity initiatives, 

things of that nature. Is there any research to suggest that that changes or that 

those are effective interventions or that it changes the behavior of students?

Jack McDevitt: Sure. I'll start. Yes, students feel that their opinions, their biases are shared by 

other people, by other students. When they're marginalized to say this isn't 

what we're going to tolerate. The second is that if it's a violent act or a 

threatening act, that's there's implications from the judicial system within the 

university so the cross is going to be high to those things. This is not a high-gains 

thing. This is not a student who is robbing somebody because they have a drug 

habit.

This is a student who is getting kicks out of the fact that they're harassing the 

LGBT group on campus or the anti-Muslim, the Muslim group on campus. I do 

think that universities have to program against it. They also have to react to 

incidents in a way that's forceful and denounces it.

Brian Levin: Many of the leaders that are out there today have experience with universities 

and they like to target them. So Matt Heimbach who was with the Traditionalist 

Workers Party got his start with a White-oriented group at Townson State. 

Nathan Domigo, similarly his involvement with Identity Evropa was when he 

was at Cal State. Many of this approach have a younger demographic. They're 

using both the internet but also colleges as a place to stir things up because they 

know that they can. This flyering, oftentimes by outsiders is being done.

What we have to remember is that sometimes the perpetrator is someone who 

comes from the outside. Oftentimes not, but we're seeing more and more at 

least with regard to the non-criminal stuff, outsiders coming onto campuses.

Shiek Pal: Thank you, professor. Our last member. Lorraine, do you have a question?

Lorraine W: Thank you. I guess this is directed to Jack. You talked about reporting was 

important because you need to help the victims. Outreach was the key. You 

mentioned the police and human relations commissions and legislation. Do you 

see a role for NGOs or private organizations, for outreach or does it mainly have 

to come from government?

Jack McDevitt: No. If you think of the Anti-Defamation League, they've been the group that's 

been as consistent in national group on this issue for a long long time. They are 

wonderful. I do think that NGOs are sometimes more in the better places. The 

problem with NGOs, and this is something that the ADL has done a good job 

APPENDIX A: TRANSCRIPT, May 16, 2018
8310490_05-16 (Completed 05/24/18)

Transcript by Rev.com

Page 24 of 25

with is they can't be just for them. It can't be the Cambodian group is looking for 

protecting just Cambodians. 

They got to understand that the haters don't specialize. They generalize to 

everybody who's different. Their efforts are less effective if they're just focusing 

on their particular clientele. That's what happens far too often. I did have want 

to have a one quick suggestion from the prior conversation that might be 

something you might want to recommend.

A couple of states have done this. It really works well and it speaks to both what 

Brian and Janine have said is if you had a state policy that recommended the 

designation of a hate crime officer in every police department, that works really 

well. It calls for training as part of that. It does the two-tier approach as part of 

that. You can also bring those groups together regionally every couple of 

months where all the officers do and come together, and they share trends, and 

see where there is organized hate activity in their town.

That's one thing that can stir a whole lot of positive activity. It doesn't cost the 

police department anything. All they're doing is designating that Officer Smith is 

going to be our hate crime liaison. That's published on a website. 

Janine Bowell: Two quick comments in response to what you just said, Jack. I agree entirely 

that having a single officer is better than sending it to officers who are not 

specialized at all. But that officer has to be supported as much as you possibly 

can provide support for that particular officer. 

Jack McDevitt: Absolutely. 

Janine Bowell: The officer needs to know that the function that they have in the department is 

valued. If he or she is overrun with hate crimes, then they will receive support. 

Second, on the NGO area, NGOs provide a really valuable, have a really valuable 

role in supporting individuals who are victimized by hate crime. So if the 

Cambodian community and the African-American community, there are very 

few African-American organizations focused on hate crime by the way, if these 

NGOs act together in coalition, they can get things like legislation passed. I know 

that happened in New York State. I know that they are working together here in 

Indiana to hopefully get some sort of legislation passed. That is a valuable role 

that NGOs can play in the context of hate crime that I've seen them play. 

Brian Levin: Brian Levin here. I think NGOs are very important but they vary with regard to 

their experience with hate crime. But they can be very important to spheric 

crimes that would otherwise go unreported to either government agencies or 

law enforcement. Again, couple of things, the better the relationship with the 

community, the better the reporting is going to end up being as well. 

Shiek Pal: Okay. Well, thank you. That concludes everybody's, all the members' questions. 

To the members of the advisory committee, Ivy and I will follow up with you on 

APPENDIX A: TRANSCRIPT, May 16, 2018
8310490_05-16 (Completed 05/24/18)

Transcript by Rev.com

Page 25 of 25

procedures on how to collect any written followup questions that you may have 

for our presenters. Then we'll sort of organize that together. I would like to take 

a minute to thank all of our presenters. This has been enormously helpful. I 

greatly appreciate your taking the time not only to pull together your materials 

for seeing us but then also taking the time to engage with us on the Q&A. 

Professor Bowell, you missed the part at the beginning where I asked if each of 

the presenters would be amenable to addressing any followup questions in 

writing that we didn't have the chance to get to on the call. So hopefully, you'd 

be open to that. 

Janine Bowell: Happy to do that.

Shiek Pal: Will place instrumentJanine Bowell: Happy to do that.

Shiek Pal: Excellent. Thank you very much. Once again, thank you to all of our presenters. 

Thank you to our committee members. This has been enormously helpful. I 

appreciate everyone's time. Thanks very much.

Jack McDevitt: Thank you all. 

Janine Bowell: Thank you.

Brian Levin: Thank you. 

Kathy: That concludes today's meeting. Thank you for your participation. You may now 

disconnect.

Ivy Davis: Thank you.

APPENDIX A: TRANSCRIPT, May 16, 2018
1 

2 

3 

4 Committee Chair: Good morning and welcome to you all. My name is Shiek Pal and I am the 

5 Chairman of the Virginia Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil 

6 Rights. This meeting will come to order. Members of the Committee are here on 

7 the dais and also attending the meeting via conference call. 

8 I also welcome interested members of the public who are with us in this 

9 meeting room and also may be listening to these proceedings by phone. At the 

10 conclusion of today’s two panel presentations, which should end at 

11 approximately 1:30 pm, audience members, including those joining by phone, 

12 will be invited to make brief comments up to five minutes about hate crimes. 

13 Please know that I will interrupt speakers that exceed the allotted time or 

14 whose focus is not specifically hate crimes.

15 Those of you in the meeting room are asked to please sign-up to speak at the 

16 entry desk just outside of this hearing room; those joining by phone who wish to 

17 speak will be asked by the operator to indicate their interest by pressing * 1 on 

18 your phones at the conclusion of Panel 2. In addition, the record will remain 

19 open for 30 days after this briefing for anyone who wants to submit written 

20 comments. Written comments must be received by April 29, 2019. The 

21 comments may be mailed to the Eastern Regional Office-USCCR, 1331 

22 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Suite 1150, Washington, DC 20425 or emailed to: 

23 ero@usccr.gov.

24 In addition, the record will remain open for 30 days after this briefing for 

25 anyone who wants to submit written comments. Written comments must be 

26 received by April 29, 2019. Comments may be mailed to the Eastern Regional 

27 Office USDCR 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue Northwest, Suite 1150, Washington DC 

28 20425 or emailed to ERO@USCCR.Gov. Panelists and audience members can 

29 also tweet about the meeting using #USCCRBriefing and the Twitter handle, 

30 @USCCRGov.

31 Also, present today are staff of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. When I 

32 introduce them I ask that they raise their hands to be recognized. With us today 

33 are Ivy Davis, Director of the Eastern Regional Office and the designated Federal 

34 Official assigned to the Virginia Committee and Program Assistants Carolyn Allen 

35 from Chicago, Illinois and Corrine Sanders from Kansas City, Missouri. 

36 I now ask my Committee colleagues to introduce themselves by stating their 

37 names and the Virginia city of residence. 

38 Lorraine Waddill: Hello, I'm Lorraine Waddill from Richmond.

39 Edmund Cooke: Good morning. Edmund Cooke. Alexandria.

APPENDIX B: TRANSCRIPT March 29, 2019 1 of 63
1 Terry Griffin: Good morning. Terry Griffin, Richmond, Virginia. 

2 Claire Gastañaga: Good morning. Clair Gastañaga, Richmond, Virginia.

3 Toa Do: Good morning. Toa Do from Fairfax, Virginia.

4 Committee Chair: Now, I'd like to introduce the Committee members who are joining by phone. 

5 Let me start with Robert Bracknell. [Instead, Vellie Deitrich-Hall spoke.]

6 Vellie Dietrich-Hall: Hello. Good morning. This is Vellie Dietrich-Hall from Cullen, Virginia. 

7 Committee Chair: Thank you. Bruce Cameron.

8 Bruce Cameron: Bruce Cameron from Chesapeake, Virginia.

9 Committee Chair: Sara Combs.

10 Sara Combs: Sara Combs from Abingdon, Virginia.

11 Committee Chair: Is Patrick Riley with us? Ryung Suh. 

12 Ryung Suh: Good morning. This is Ryung Suh from Vienna, Virginia.

13 Committee Chair: I’ll try for Mr. Bracknell one more time. [No response.]

14 The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights is an independent bipartisan agency 

15 established by Congress to study and collect information concerning legal 

16 developments involving discrimination or denial of equal protection of the law 

17 under the U.S. Constitution due to race, color, religion, sex, age, handicap, or 

18 national origin or in the administration of justice. Congress also directed the 

19 Commission to establish advisory committees in each of the states and in the 

20 District of Columbia. 51 federal advisory committees are authorized to inform 

21 the Commission about civil rights issues in their states consistent with the 

22 Commission's jurisdiction.

23 The purpose of today's briefing is to gather information about hate crimes in 

24 Virginia. I know that I speak for all Committee members by extending my 

25 deepest appreciation to each of today’s speakers. We are so fortunate that you 

26 have agreed to share your expertise with us on this most important and timely 

27 topic. 

28 We have a lot to cover in a short amount of time, so, let me review the ground 

29 rules for the briefing. This is a public meeting open to the media and the general 

30 public. The meeting is being recorded and a transcript will be produced. In 

31 addition to our introductory speaker, there will also be two panels, each with 

32 four experts. Panelist have been advised that they will each have approximately 

APPENDIX B: TRANSCRIPT March 29, 2019 2 of 63
1 seven minutes to make their opening statements. Panelists, due to our time 

2 constraints, please understand that I may have to cut you off if you exceed that 

3 time. As with members of the audience, you may also submit additional written 

4 comments by April 29th. After the presenters on each panel conclude their 

5 opening statements, you will be asked to respond to members’ questions. The 

6 members will each be given five minutes to ask one question and one follow up.

7 To ensure a rich discussion of these issues, let me note that if you wish to 

8 respond to a question posed to a fellow panelist, please just let me know and I 

9 will accommodate you. 

10 Lastly, but importantly, we want to ensure that our invited guests do not 

11 defame or degrade any person or organization. The individual or group that 

12 feels defamed or degraded by statements made in this hearing, may provide a 

13 written response today during the open comment period or may file a written 

14 statement for inclusion in the record. I urge all persons making statements 

15 today to be judicious and courteous.

16 Again, the Virginia Advisory Committee appreciates the willingness of all todays 

17 speakers to share their views and experiences with the Committee.

18 Our purpose today is to hear from experts, advocates, and the public on the 

19 critical issue of hate crimes. How to identify and report them. How to gather 

20 data on trends. Most importantly, how to prevent and prosecute them. Just two 

21 weeks ago, the eyes of the world were focused on the tragic shooting at a pair 

22 of mosques in New Zealand. Two years ago, the eyes of our nation were focused 

23 right here on the Commonwealth as a Unite the Right Rally in Charlottesville 

24 descended into chaos, violence and hate. We're honored to have with us today 

25 some speakers with unique and deeply personal connections and insight into 

26 the events of that tragic day.

27 So, I would now like introduce our first speaker, Ms. Susan Bro, President and 

28 Chairman of the Heather Heyer Foundation. Ms. Bro, you have 15 minutes for 

29 your statement. Welcome and please begin.

30 Susan Bro: Thank you. Good morning. Thank everyone for being here today on this 

31 beautiful Friday. I'm going to give you a brief history and then tell you why it 

32 matters and tell you how it didn't matter. As a black student in Charlottesville 

33 city schools, studied Civil War history, she questioned why there were statues 

34 celebrating Confederate war heroes in the city park. She began a petition to 

35 have them removed. Mind you, this is a high school teenager. She gathered 

36 enough signatures to bring to City Council. Charlottesville City Council voted to 

37 remove the statues. A local self-proclaimed white supremacist organized a 

38 protest to the statues’ removals. He was joined by national leaders and a variety 

39 of white supremacy movements, including the KKK, the Traditional Workers 

40 Party, the Alt Right and Neo Nazis from 35 states.

APPENDIX B: TRANSCRIPT March 29, 2019 3 of 63
1 The call was sent out under the pretense of protecting freedom of speech and 

2 white rights. They opened the weekend with a tiki torch march on the University 

3 of Virginia lawn on Friday night clashing violently with students and faculty. The 

4 night rang with chants of, "Blood and soil and Jews will not replace us." They 

5 also chanted, "You will not replace us” and “into the ovens." Saturday’s protest 

6 was to begin at noon. As early as 8:30 in the morning, hate-filled protesters 

7 began to arrive and converge on the downtown park by the statue. Some 

8 arrived with knuckles taped for fighting and carrying shields, bats, wooden poles 

9 and wearing helmets. Some arrived with semiautomatic weapons. Some carried 

10 knives. Violent clashes with counter protestors erupted throughout the day.

11 My daughter, Heather Heyer, was part of a group of peaceful counter protestors 

12 who stayed away from the areas of violence. They gathered along the opposite 

13 side of the downtown mall from the areas of fighting while chanting and singing 

14 songs of solidarity. As the governor declared an unlawful assembly, the park by 

15 the statue cleared. My daughter was caught on film talking to one of the 

16 helmeted girls as they were packing up their cars and leaving. Heather asked her 

17 why she was there and if she could talk about why she felt hate for others. The 

18 girl simply answered “no comment” to every question.

19 Heather's group was joined by other counter protestors who were relieved it 

20 was over and the haters were leaving. The group decided to head up Fourth 

21 Street to meet up at the downtown mall for celebrating. What they did not 

22 know was that a young man from Ohio was sitting at the top of the hill of that 

23 street watching them. Earlier in the day, he was filmed chanting Nazi slogans 

24 and marching with a Nazi shield while wearing the white polo and khakis 

25 requested by the organizers. He had started down the street in his car a few 

26 minutes before and then backed up to sit a moment.

27 Perceiving the crowd to be in support of black and brown persons, he hit the 

28 accelerator and drove his car into the crowd. Bodies flew into the air or were 

29 smashed into the ground. My daughter spun through the air smashing his front 

30 windshield leaving behind blood and skin. Her body then fell to the ground. As 

31 he began to shift into reverse, people raced up the street to smash his rear 

32 windshield trying to stop him. He raced back up the street running over some 

33 people coming and going. He ran over others who had raced down the street to 

34 help − between 30 to 40 people were injured that day. My daughter died almost 

35 instantly as she bled out internally and externally.

36 Hate crimes statistics are on the rise in the country according to the FBI's 

37 released . . . Sorry, I’m having trouble seeing through the tears a little bit. 

38 According to the FBI's released statistics for 2017, there was a 17% increase in 

39 hate crimes from 2016 to 2017. In Virginia, there was an almost 50% increase in 

40 crimes reported for 2017 and those come from the FBI's site. You can look them 

41 up. I have the footnotes. Yet, we have a major loophole in the reporting system 

42 that allows local agencies to avoid reporting hate crimes. None of the victims of 

43 the car attack in Charlottesville are counted among those statistics for 

APPENDIX B: TRANSCRIPT March 29, 2019 4 of 63
1 Charlottesville for 2017. Charlottesville only reported one hate crime for 2017 

2 and it actually occurred a few months after the car attack.

3 Joe Platania: We in this country do not have accurate information about the actual number of 

4 hate crimes that occur. So, we don't even know how much of a problem with 

5 which we are dealing. To offer an accurate diagnosis, a doctor must have a full 

6 understanding of the symptoms. It is my hope that this Committee can gather 

7 information to push for more accurate reporting and a clearer understanding of 

8 the actual numbers of hate crimes. There needs to be accurate reporting of 

9 figures to give us a much clearer picture of how to best allocate resources for 

10 combating hate.

11 It is my hope that the work we do here today can prevent other mothers and 

12 fathers from feeling the pain of losing a child to hate. Thank you. 

13 Committee Chair: Thank you Ms. Bro. 

14 So, now, we will take a minute to assemble our first panel of experts who will 

15 discuss the history of hate crimes in Virginia, the current legal framework, 

16 enforcement and data. Joe are you on the line?

17 Joe Platania: I am.

18 Committee Chair: Perfect. We're going to get started in just a minute.

19 Joe Platania: Okay, and I heard of all of Susan's remarks.

20 Committee Chair: Okay, excellent. Thank you. The experts on our first panel include Joe Platania, 

21 the Charlottesville Commonwealth attorney who is joining us on the phone; 

22 Mary McCord, Professor of Law at the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and 

23 Protection at Georgetown University Law Center; Barbara Oudekerk, Statistician 

24 in the Victimization Statistics Unit of the US Department of Justice Bureau of 

25 Statistics; Kai Wiggins, Policy Analyst at the Arab American Institute. Welcome 

26 and please proceed with your opening statements. Mr. Platania, we'll start with 

27 you.

28 Joe Platania: Thank you. This is a little awkward that I'm on the phone and I can't see who's in 

29 the room, but I wanted to say good morning to the members of the Committee, 

30 my colleagues on the panel and anyone else I might have missed. I'm truly 

31 appreciative for being included and I don't know if Susan can hear me, but good 

32 morning Susan and thank you for your remarks.

33 I believe everyone's been provided with some written materials and I'm going to

34 briefly go over them and then probably defer to my colleagues for their 

35 comments and leave more time for questions and discussion. Three main 

36 points. The first is the status of existing hate crime laws in Virginia and I am a 

37 state prosecutor, so our office prosecutes crimes that are going to be dealt with 

APPENDIX B: TRANSCRIPT March 29, 2019 5 of 63
1 in state court. So, we're different from federal prosecutors and federal courts. 

2 So, I'm speaking narrowly to the code of Virginia and state laws as it applies.

3 Did someone just say something?

4 Committee Chair: No, you're fine.

5 Joe Platania: Okay. Are you able to hear me okay?

6 Committee Chair: Yes, loud and clear.

7 Joe Platania: Okay, great. So, there are several, what I would describe as specific hate crime 

8 offenses. They're rarely quite candidly, prosecuted. They rarely seem to be the 

9 meat and potatoes of what we do as state prosecutors, but they are listed in the 

10 written materials. Wearing a mask in public and there's some rationale behind 

11 why the general assembly enacted that law. Burning a cross. Burning an object. 

12 Displaying a noose. Placing swastikas on certain properties. So, those are just 

13 kind of a summary what I would describe as the existing hate crimes laws on the 

14 books and I think as Susan mentioned that's not a lengthy list and it probably 

15 misses quite a bit of conduct.

16 The second point I'd like to make in my opening remarks are there are two, 

17 again, very narrow criminal offenses that carry with it an enhancement for 

18 behavior that is motivated by racial, ethnic or religious animus and that's a 

19 misdemeanor assault and battery, which is a harmful or offensive touching 

20 without injury. That can be enhanced to a felony if you're able to charge and 

21 prove that the actions were motivated by racial, ethnic or religious animus.

22 There is also trespassing on the property of another for the purpose of 

23 damaging property. That also is able to be enhanced if you're able to prove the 

24 racial animus. The third and final point I'll make is that there are a whole host of 

25 ordinary criminal offenses that we charge and prosecute where racial, ethnic, 

26 religious animus are not an element of proof and are not part of what we need 

27 to charge or bring evidence of into court. And, that's what really happened in 

28 state court with the prosecution of Mr. Fields and some of the individuals that 

29 beat DeAndre Harris in the parking garage. They were charged with basically 

30 state crime felony assault offenses – malicious wounding, aggravated malicious 

31 wounding in the case of Heather, first degree murder, but those were . . . there 

32 was nothing about those charges or those prosecutions that injected race into 

33 our proof or our elements. So, in one way, it was strategically one less thing we 

34 had to prove and one less thing that we needed to have evidence of in state 

35 court.

36 A second point is my feeling in being in front of, I guess, three or four different 

37 juries is it was so clearly part of the case. It was in some ways almost more 

38 powerful left unsaid because it was just so clear was what motivating these 

39 individuals on August 12th of 2017. But, it was very difficult to explain to the 

APPENDIX B: TRANSCRIPT March 29, 2019 6 of 63
1 public and to the victims why we weren't charging a hate crime. A lot of the 

2 folks were asking − that were victims of Mr. Fields’ car attack − well, you're 

3 charging him with aggravated malicious wounding, why aren't you charging him 

4 with attempted murder? They wanted to hear something that made more sense 

5 to them, as lay people. Aggravated malicious wounding carries the penalty of 20 

6 years to life whereas attempted murder carries with it a penalty of only two to 

7 10 years.

8 Joe Platania: So, I think there was also a disconnect in trying to interact with victims and 

9 explain to the public why we were charging felonious assaults without getting 

10 into language that made more clear to people what actually happened. Because 

11 we all knew what happened. And, I think Susan covered it really nicely in her 

12 opening comments about some of the statistical problems that this presents 

13 when you look at the prosecutions from August 12th of 2017. For none of them 

14 to qualify statistically as a hate crime, I think is what gives many people pause. 

15 So, that's a brief overview of some of the comments I wanted to make. I'm 

16 really interested in hearing from some of my colleagues and then being 

17 available to answer any questions and once again, thank you for including me in 

18 this very important discussion. 

19 Committee Chair: Thank you very much. Professor McCord.

20 Mary McCord: Good morning. Thank you for inviting me here this morning. I am currently as 

21 the Chair indicated, a professor at Georgetown and a litigator doing full-time 

22 constitutional impact litigation, but before helping start up this small litigation 

23 shop within the law school, I spent most of my career at the Department of 

24 Justice – the last three years either as the Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney 

25 General or the acting assistant Attorney General for National Security at DOJ. 

26 Prior to that, 20 years as a federal prosecutor in the US Attorney's Office in DC. 

27 So, my expertise is really on violent extremism and terrorism crimes and under 

28 the National Security Division that I led, we prosecuted all crimes of terrorism 

29 under the federal code. Primarily since 9/11, that has meant terrorism 

30 committed by those who are doing their acts on behalf of or in furtherance of 

31 the goals of a foreign terrorist organization like Al Qaeda or like ISIS, as opposed 

32 to those who are motivated by domestic ideology.

33 That means it's been predominantly Islamist extremist terrorism. Now, there are 

34 some terrorism offenses on the federal books that allow for prosecuting crimes 

35 based on domestic ideological goals particularly when weapons of mass 

36 destruction are used or when the target is a US official, mass transportation or 

37 US federal property. So, for example, recently the Department was successful in 

38 prosecuting three Southwest Kansas men for their attempt to bomb an 

39 apartment complex and mosque that was frequented, used for worship and 

40 lived in by Somalian Muslims. They were able to prosecute that under both 

41 federal terrorism crimes of conspiracy to use a weapon of mass destruction as 

42 well as federal hate crimes based on the attempted bombing. That was a good 

APPENDIX B: TRANSCRIPT March 29, 2019 7 of 63
1 example of sort of the combination of different federal crimes being used to 

2 vindicate separate interests. 

3 Mary McCord: Similarly, in Virginia recently with the prosecution of James Fields by the state 

4 prosecutor, by Joe Platania who we just heard from, the state's interest, and the 

5 exposure of Mr. Fields to a life sentence and more were vindicated, while the 

6 guilty pleas obtained just a couple of days ago by the federal prosecutor there, 

7 the United States Attorney there, were able to vindicate more the national 

8 interest and show the moral opprobrium and the societal condemnation that 

9 should be directed at that crime based on its hateful motivation. 

10 But, we lack currently in the federal code a domestic terrorism offense that 

11 would have applied otherwise to Mr. Fields' conduct. Something that would 

12 allow for the prosecution as terrorism of the use of a firearm or a vehicle in the 

13 case of Mr. Fields to commit an act of violence based on an intent to intimidate 

14 or coerce a civilian population or to influence a policy of government by 

15 intimidation or coercion. There is a domestic terrorism statute on Virginia's 

16 books − a state domestic terrorism charge − and it is broad enough that it could 

17 be used for . . . I should say it’s a terrorism charge not a domestic terrorism 

18 charge. It is written broadly enough that it could be used for terrorism cases 

19 whether inspired by Islamist extremist terrorism or by domestic ideological 

20 grievances. 

21 And, we can certainly talk later about why or why that might not have been 

22 used with respect to Mr. Fields. It does have an intent requirement that just 

23 elevates the burden of proof on the prosecutor, so there are good reasons that 

24 a prosecutor might decide not to charge it. Also, I think, states are accustomed 

25 to the federal government investigating and prosecuting terrorism and the 

26 federal government is better resourced for it, has better access to information, 

27 etc. I don't want to take up all my time on that because I think it's important to 

28 also talk to you about some of the tools that are available under Virginia law.

29 So, my organization in the wake of the Unite the Right Rally, used Virginia's own 

30 anti private militia and anti-paramilitary activity laws to bring a civil case in the 

31 Charlottesville Circuit Court against many of the individuals and groups who had 

32 invaded Charlottesville during the Unite the Right rally. These were groups that 

33 included not only the white supremacists, neo Nazi and neo confederate groups, 

34 but also the self-professed militia who came heavily armed with assault rifles 

35 and side arms and in full military gear. But, even among the alt right groups and 

36 the white supremacist groups who didn't necessarily carry assault rifles, they 

37 formed up as battalions – as private military. They marched through the streets 

38 with the shield bearing members on their flanks. They formed up into phalanxes 

39 to batter their ideological opponents, etc. 

40 So, under Virginia's constitution, like that of 48 other states, private militias are 

41 forbidden and this provision dates back to the very founding of the Constitution 

42 and it was designed specifically to ensure the right of all citizens to live free 

APPENDIX B: TRANSCRIPT March 29, 2019 8 of 63
1 from the fear of an alien soldiery commanded by men who are not responsible 

2 to the law and political process. And, that was one basis for our suit that was 

3 recognized by the Charlottesville Circuit Court. Another basis was an anti4 paramilitary activity statute that's on the books in Virginia, which is also on the 

5 books of 25 other states, that prohibits teaching, training or practicing in the use 

6 of a firearm or any technique capable of causing serious bodily injury or death in 

7 furtherance of a civil disorder. And, this was another basis for our lawsuit that 

8 the Charlottesville Circuit Court recognized.

9 Mary McCord: This lawsuit was successful in obtaining 23 court orders against individuals and 

10 groups including those mentioned by Ms. Bro like . . . not the KKK, but like 

11 Vanguard America, Traditional Workers Party, National Socialist Movement, 

12 which is the American Nazi Party. Court orders that they could not return to 

13 Charlottesville in groups of two or more people acting in concert while armed 

14 with anything that could be used as a weapon during any rally or protest. These 

15 are current authorities that could be used more aggressively to actually prevent 

16 violence. 

17 There's another statute 28 states have that bars drilling or parading with 

18 firearms in a public place. 28 states have this and it could be something Virginia 

19 should look into. 

20 Finally, one last very quick comment. Virginia should clarify that it's firearms 

21 regulation preemption statute does not apply to reasonable and generally 

22 applicable regulation by local governments that allow them to protect public 

23 safety by prohibiting all weapons, including fire arms, from public events where 

24 violence is expected. Right now that statute is somewhat unclear and because it 

25 provides for court costs and expenses to be awarded against anyone who 

26 prevails in a challenge, it means law enforcement often has to make the horrible 

27 choice between doing reasonable things to protect public safety at public 

28 marches and facing litigation expenses. Thank you.

29 Committee Chair: Thank you very much Professor McCord. Ms. Oudekerk. 

30 Barbara Oudekerk: Good morning everyone. Thank you for inviting me here today. I'll be discussing 

31 the Bureau of Justice Statistics effort to collect national data on the prevalence 

32 and characteristics of hate crimes. For those of you that may not be familiar 

33 with BJS, the Bureau is a statistical agency within the Department of Justice; I 

34 am a Statistician at the BJS Victimization Statistics Unit. I work on the National 

35 Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), so I will be focusing most of my presentation 

36 today on the NCVS data. The Department of Justice also administers the FBI’s 

37 Hate Crime Statistics Program, which is part of the Uniform Crime Reporting 

38 Program or the UCR, which I just mentioned. These data are compiled from local 

39 law enforcement agencies and reflect crimes that are known to police and 

40 recorded as hate crimes by police.

APPENDIX B: TRANSCRIPT March 29, 2019 9 of 63
1 In contrast, the NCVS is a nationally representative household-based survey that 

2 asks residence about their victimization experiences, including whether or not 

3 the crimes were motivated by bias or hate. In 2017, about 146,000 interviews 

4 were conducted with residents across the United States and again, asking them 

5 personally about their experiences with victimization. Both of the national 

6 collection, the NCVS and the UCR define hate crime according to the Hate 

7 Crimes Statistics Act – meaning crimes motivated by bias against the victims 

8 because of his or her race, or ethnicities, gender or gender identity, sexual 

9 orientation, religion or disability. 

10 Barbara Oudekerk: In the NCVS, when a respondent reports that they've experienced a violent or 

11 property crime, the respondent is then asked a series of questions including 

12 whether they thought that it was motivated by one of these biases. Then the 

13 survey asks whether they have any evidence that the crime was motivated by 

14 hate and, in order to be classified as a victim of a hate crime in the survey, the 

15 victim has to state that one of these three things happened. Either the offender 

16 used language that made them think that they were a victim of a hate crime, 

17 the offender left hate symbols at the scene of the crime or the police told the 

18 victim at any point that this was a hate crime. If one of those three things 

19 occurred, it's coded as a hate crime victimization in the NCVS.

20 And, even though the NCVS and UCR are both aligned with the Hate Crime 

21 Statistics Act, there are key differences between the two collections that are 

22 important to consider when examining the difference in their estimates. I've 

23 provided today a handout with slides and one of the slides goes over some of 

24 those key differences, but for example, two of the very important ones are that 

25 the crimes they capture, are different and the victims that they cover are 

26 different. Again, the NCVS covers ages 12 and older.

27 In addition, the NCVS is based on victims’ perceptions, which is a lower burden 

28 of proof than what police investigators need to record an incident as a hate 

29 crime. Also, the NCVS captures those crimes that are reported and not reported 

30 to police. That's a key aspect of the NCVS design.

31 So, I wanted to present three figures today showing data up through 2017 from 

32 the NCVS and the first in the packet is on page five, figure one. If I can draw your 

33 attention to that. This slide compares the average annual number of hate crime 

34 victimizations in the NCVS to the UCR and you can see that the numbers are 

35 lower in the UCR. Starting with that first bar, this is looking at the five-year time 

36 period between 2013 and 2017. Again, looking at the average annual number of 

37 victimizations across that five-year time period. The first bar here shows that 

38 there were about 204,600 hate crimes reported in the NCVS on average per 

39 year − about half of those, 50%, were reported to the police. So, we see there's 

40 a large number here that are never reported to police and then if we look at the 

41 next bar, about 22% of that total was reported to police and the victims told 

42 police at some point that they thought it was a hate crime.

APPENDIX B: TRANSCRIPT March 29, 2019 10 of 63
1 Kai Wiggins: So, that means about 45,600 victimizations on average per year were reported 

2 to police as hate crimes over those time periods based on NCVS. For about 

3 15,200 of those, at some point, the victim said that the police identified the 

4 crime as a hate crime − confirmed that it was a hate crime in their investigation. 

5 And, you can see how these numbers compare that on average, during this 

6 same timeframe there were about 7500 hate crimes reported through the UCR.

7 Barbara Oudekerk: We can also use the NCVS and UCR to start to examine what are the biases 

8 motivating these hate crimes. If I can draw your attention to figure two at page 

9 six. Here in the dark blue bar is the NCVS and in the light blue is the UCR. You 

10 can see that in both collections the largest proportion of hate crimes were 

11 motivated by race or ethnicity. But, then if we look at the middle three bars, you 

12 can see that a larger proportion of the hate crimes reported in the NCVS were 

13 motivated by gender, sexual orientation, or disability. If you look at the last set 

14 of bars, a larger proportion UCR hate crimes were motivated by religion. 

15 The last slide I bring to your attention is on page seven, figure three. This is 

16 looking at the trends of the hate crimes reported and not reported to police 

17 from 2009 to 2017. You can see that between 2009 and 2017, if you look at that 

18 top bar - the black bar - the number of hate crimes not reported to the police, 

19 has decreased from 172000 to about 87000. So, another way to think about 

20 this, is that the percent of hate crimes reported to police has increased over 

21 time. In 2009, about 40% of hate crimes victimizations were reported to police 

22 and in 2017 this proportion was larger, about 55% of hate crimes were reported 

23 to the police. And I'll stop there. Thank you again for the opportunity to share 

24 BJS's National Crime Victimization Survey data. These estimates are available at 

25 the BJS website. I look forward to answering any questions you have about 

26 NCVS. 

27 Committee Chair: Thanks Ms. Oudekerk. Mr. Wiggins.

28 Kai Wiggins: Members of the Committee, my fellow panelists, and those in attendance, good 

29 morning. My name is Kai Wiggins, and I am a Policy Analyst at the Arab

30 American Institute. Before I begin, I'd first like to thank the Committee for 

31 holding a briefing on this topic and for inviting the Arab American Institute to 

32 share its research and recommendations. I would also like to recognize Ivy

33 Davis, of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, for her guidance and support in 

34 coordinating today's proceedings.

35 The Arab American Institute is a non-profit, non-partisan organization founded 

36 in 1985 to nurture and encourage the participation of Arab Americans in 

37 political and civic life. Historically and, as with many communities in the United 

38 States, threats of targeted hate violence have prevented Arab Americans from 

39 full participation in a democratic process. Given this historical perspective, not 

40 to mention the reported nationwide increase of hate crime in recent years, we 

41 are committed to promoting effective hate crime prevention in every state, 

42 including the Commonwealth of Virginia.

APPENDIX B: TRANSCRIPT March 29, 2019 11 of 63
1 When it comes to this commitment, our principal concern is improving the 

2 national hate crime reporting and data collection system, of which I will provide 

3 a general outline before turning to the subject of this Briefing. Under the Hate 

4 Crime Statistics Act, the Attorney General is required to collect data on crimes 

5 that manifest evidence of prejudice based on race, gender and gender identity, 

6 religion, disability, sexual orientation or ethnicity. The Federal Bureau of 

7 Investigation carries out this requirement through its administration of a 

8 Uniform Crime Reporting Program, which publishes annual statistics based on 

9 crime data submitted from federal, state and local law enforcement.

10 While federal departments and agencies are required to provide the Justice 

11 Department with data on crimes that occur within their respective jurisdictions, 

12 state and local law enforcement participate in the UCR system on a voluntary 

13 basis. This should inform our understanding of the federal government's annual 

14 hate crime statistics, and in particular, our assessment of the data 

15 corresponding to individual law enforcement agencies. One should not 

16 overlook, however, that many states, including Virginia, have an active 

17 requirement for law enforcement reporting of hate crimes and other types of 

18 crimes to state-level repositories for criminal justice information. These entities 

19 generally perform the function of state UCR programs, which serve as 

20 intermediaries between the federal program and participating agencies.

21 In this respect, agencies in some states, have greater incentives to report hate 

22 crimes than others participating in the UCR system, as those agencies may be 

23 required under state law to submit hate crime data that components of state 

24 government customarily transmit to the federal government. These 

25 discrepancies could have some effect on the numbers we see reflected in 

26 federal hate crime statistics. Other factors related to state code, such as the 

27 nature or existence of criminal statutes offering protections for hate crime 

28 victims, or laws requiring basic and in-service training on hate crime for law 

29 enforcement, might also have an effect.

30 At the local level, some agencies have adopted specific hate crime policies and 

31 devote substantial resources to hate crime prevention. These factors are also 

32 worthy of consideration. Having provided this general outline of the national 

33 hate crime reporting data collection system, I hope the Committee appreciates 

34 the intersecting, multi-dimensional factors that might affect the nature and 

35 extent of hate crime reporting in particular jurisdictions. A centralized federal 

36 program collects, but does not require, hate crime data from state and local 

37 agencies under congressional mandate. These agencies must answer to 

38 different state laws that require, incentivize or generally promote the provision 

39 of hate crime data, and these agencies have also adopted different policies, not 

40 to mention institutional cultures or attitudes toward hate crime and hate crime 

41 reporting.

42 Therefore, in crafting policy recommendations to improve the national hate 

43 crime reporting and data collection system, we must take a comprehensive 

APPENDIX B: TRANSCRIPT March 29, 2019 12 of 63
1 approach. One that is attentive to these intersecting, multi-dimensional factors. 

2 And when we assess the landscape in a particular state, as we are in this 

3 Briefing, these considerations should inform our perspective.

4 Kai Wiggins: I will devote the remainder of my time to briefing the Committee on the present 

5 legal framework in Virginia to address, prevent or respond to hate crime. Given 

6 my time constraints, and the information my fellow analysts have already 

7 provided, I will concentrate on the relevant state laws and not address the 

8 question of federal hate crime enforcement. Furthermore, while my written 

9 statement includes a review of the historical hate crime data submitted from 

10 state and local agencies to the UCR system, and a series of recommendations, 

11 these are not included in my oral statement. I'm prepared to answer any 

12 questions the Committee might have on these items during the panel discussion 

13 and have submitted my full written statement for the record.

14 One component of our research and advocacy at the Arab American Institute is 

15 comparative review of hate crime laws in each state and the District of 

16 Colombia. In conducting this review, we generally ask three questions. First, 

17 does the state have a hate crime statute applicable to a broad range of criminal 

18 conduct that offers inclusive protections for hate crime victims? Second, does 

19 the state require law enforcement agencies to report hate crime and collect 

20 hate crime data? And third, does the state authorize mandatory basic and in21 service hate crime training for law enforcement personnel? 

22 To answer the first question: Yes, Virginia has a hate crime statute, though it is 

23 not applicable to a broad range of criminal conduct nor offers inclusive 

24 protections for hate crime victims. In Virginia, defendants who commit simple 

25 assault, assault and battery, or entering another person's property for the 

26 purpose of damaging it, and in doing so, intentionally selects the victim or the 

27 property associated with the victim, because their race, religious conviction, 

28 color or national origin, are subject to enhanced penalties. These provisions do 

29 not extend to other forms of criminal conduct against persons or property, such 

30 as murder or arson. Moreover, they do not apply to crimes in which the 

31 defendant intentionally selects the victim or property associated with the victim 

32 because of their sexual orientation, gender, disability or gender identity.

33 On to the second question: Virginia code requires law enforcement agencies to 

34 report hate crimes to the Virginia State Police, which maintains a central 

35 repository for collection and analysis of hate crime information. This law, which 

36 predates the federal Hate Crime Statistics Act by two years, currently provides a 

37 three-part definition of hate crime. For the purpose of data collection under this 

38 section, hate crime is defined to include “criminal acts,” “illegal acts” and “all 

39 other incidents, as determined by law enforcement authorities,” that are 

40 directed against persons or their property because their race, religion or ethnic 

41 or national origin. The range of criminal conduct covered under this definition of 

42 hate crime is more expansive than that which is subject to hate crime penalty 

43 enhancement under Virginia criminal code. However, consistent with Virginia's 

APPENDIX B: TRANSCRIPT March 29, 2019 13 of 63
1 hate crime statute, the definition of hate crime used for reporting and data 

2 collection, does not include crimes motivated by sexual orientation, gender, 

3 disability or gender identity.

4 Kai Wiggins: And, now we come to the third question. All law enforcement officers in Virginia 

5 are required to complete statewide certification examinations developed and 

6 administrated by the Department of Criminal Justice Services. While the 

7 department’s training manual and compulsory minimum training standards 

8 include nonspecific sections on investigating and reporting hate crime, hate 

9 crime training is not expressly required under state law. In contrast, some states 

10 have laws requiring specific forms of hate crime training, which include 

11 provisions relating to investigating, certain types of hate crime, reporting hate 

12 crime incidents, and providing assistance to victims and communities. 

13 As I have already emphasized, we must acknowledge the potential effect the 

14 state laws and agency-level factors on the nature and extent of hate crime 

15 reporting in particular jurisdictions, as reflected in federal hate crime statistics. 

16 This should inform both our analysis of hate crime data and the 

17 recommendations we promote to improve hate crime. And, as a final word, I'm 

18 happy to brief the Committee on any of the material provided in my written 

19 statement, which includes our research discovering the omission of 

20 Charlottesville in the hate crime statistics data and historical hate crime data 

21 over the last thirty years.

22 Committee Chair: Thank you very much. Members of the Committee will now ask questions of all 

23 the Panel 1 speakers. For the Committee members on the phone, I'm going to

24 first turn to the members on the dais, with the exception of myself and Terry 

25 Griffin. I will then turn to the members on the phone and then Terry and I will 

26 wrap-up. Having said that, each member has 5 minutes, and you have one 

27 follow up. Lorraine Waddill. 

28 Lorraine Waddill: I’d like to ask Ms. Bro, did you see any new laws that passed the VA General 

29 Assembly this year that pleased you?

30 Susan Bro: David Toscano –member, VA House of Delegates – and I had talked about the 

31 fact that he had tried to put a few things through, but most of them died in 

32 subcommittees, sadly. A resolution honoring Heather went through, but that's 

33 pretty much all that happened as far as I know. Now I could be wrong on that, 

34 but I don't think there were a lot of sweeping changes. I'm sure that other 

35 members of the panel could tell you that better than I could.

36 Lorraine Waddill: Okay, so to the other members of the panel, did you see anything you liked 

37 coming out of this year's General Assembly in Virginia?

38 Mary McCord: I'm not sure. I don't believe any of the bills that the Attorney General promoted 

39 or introduced – I don’t actually know who introduced them − the package they 

40 put together, I don't believe any of those made it out of committee. I have some 

APPENDIX B: TRANSCRIPT March 29, 2019 14 of 63
1 quarrel with some of them, including designating domestic terrorist 

2 organizations, which I disagree with, but there were some others that deserve 

3 some considered discussion. There was a hate crime bill, as well, and perhaps 

4 Kai has more details on that.

5 Committee Chair: Can I ask all the members and speakers to state your name for the record 

6 before you answer, so the recording will capture the speaker.

7 Kai Wiggins: We track state legislation on hate crime. I believe there is one bill introduced 

8 that would create a commission to study hate crime responses in the 

9 Commonwealth, and that could not move forward. But we believe that it would 

10 be an excellent first-step in trying to assess and address some of the apparent 

11 shortcomings and issues present within the state. But, I don't believe that bill 

12 moved forward.

13 Lorraine Waddill: Will all of you be helping to try to come together with the bill for next year that 

14 maybe will be passed? After the horror of Charlottesville, I thought that 

15 something would be passed.

16 Mary McCord: Certainly we have reached out to the Attorney General's office in the past and 

17 offered our legal advice with respect to various bills, and stand ready to do that 

18 again. I would hope that some reforms would get approved the next session.

19 Lorraine Waddill: Thank you.

20 Kai Wiggins: If I could add that in my written statement, for the record, we include federal, 

21 state and local recommendations. So, I hope the members of the Committee 

22 can review those. We do have thoughts and we're open to changes in the 

23 future.

24 Lorraine Waddill: Thank you.

25 Committee Chair: Ed Cooke.

26 Edmund Cooke: Thank you, for your testimony to all the panelists. A brief question for Ms.

27 McCord − any of the panelists can address it if they so desire. Are we ever likely 

28 to effectively control the impact of hate crimes in our communities without 

29 enacting practical gun control laws and regulations?

30 Mary McCord: I think here we are talking about tools for law enforcement to prevent crimes 

31 and a lot of the focus of my testimony this morning wasn't so much about 

32 individual crimes, but tools that Virginia has or should have, that would actually 

33 thwart the efforts of those who are bent on extremist violence, hate crime 

34 motivated violence, from organizing themselves and coming into public spaces 

35 and creating environments that are so conducive to the violence we saw in 

APPENDIX B: TRANSCRIPT March 29, 2019 15 of 63
1 Charlottesville that resulted in the death of Ms. Bro's daughter and serious,

2 serious injuries to many more people.

3 And, so that's why I focused on things like, using these anti-paramilitary 

4 activities statutes which are content neutral, not based on your ideology, but if 

5 you are organizing yourself and training to be able to come with the organized 

6 use of force in an intimidating way like we saw in Charlottesville, that's illegal

7 right now under Virginia law. The statute I mentioned, that we relied on in our 

8 lawsuit, dates back to the early 1980's when the KKK was opening up training 

9 camps in a number of states around the country, and was originally used to try 

10 to target those training camps, because the training was being done for use in 

11 civil disorders.

12 We, of course used it to get an injunction that would prohibit using it out on the 

13 open streets. But, those are things that certainly Virginia, I think, and I talked to 

14 a lot of local law enforcement, Virginians weren't aware the statute was there. 

15 The statutes that I indicated exist in 28 states that prohibit the drilling, parading 

16 or marching with firearms in public as a military unit. Those date back to post 

17 civil war reconstruction, and have been upheld by the Supreme Court in the 

18 1800s. And the idea there is, where you have this intimidating show of force, 

19 marching through the streets, by people completely outside of civilian 

20 government authority, wholly unaccountable of the public, creating an 

21 intimidating environment, it is really a powder keg for violence.

22 These are things that really need to be dusted off and I've been, since our law 

23 suit, consulting with leaders in many different jurisdictions, Berkeley, Portland, 

24 Dayton Ohio, just filed suit recently because a wing of the KKK is getting ready 

25 to march there in May. And, so I hope I've answered. What I'm trying to get at, 

26 there are other tools to try to calm down this environment of hate that we're in 

27 right now, and for state and local law enforcement to use more proactively. But 

28 this federal firearms regulation preemption statute is really bad. It really 

29 hamstrings law enforcement's ability to do what is right to protect public safety 

30 in their own community. Properly read, we actually think it would allow a city to 

31 say, "at this event, at this rally, no weapons whatsoever, including firearms,”

32 because that’s a generally applicable regulation. But, cities are scared to do 

33 that, because they're concerned that they are going to be sued, and they're 

34 going to be on the hook for a lot of money.

35 Edmund Cooke: Are there Federal prohibitions? 

36 Mary McCord: So, the federal government doesn't have an anti-private militia piece in the 

37 Constitution. The Second Amendment gives individuals the individual right to 

38 bear arms for their self-protection, which is what the Supreme Court held in 

39 2008 in the Heller case. The reason the states enacted these provisions was 

40 because the state governments really did not want to have rogue militaries 

41 challenging their authority, and that's why 48 states, Virginia was the first to 

42 adopt that and 47 other states did too. The provisions are almost identical in 

APPENDIX B: TRANSCRIPT March 29, 2019 16 of 63
1 every state, that in all cases the military should be under the strict 

2 subordination of the civilian power.

3 Edmund Cooke: Are there institutional reasons?

4 Barbara Oudekerk: We do ask the question “Why was the crime not reported to the police,” and

5 have some estimates based on 2015 reported data that has been released. The 

6 full report is available online, so you can go there as well. About 20% say that 

7 they felt police couldn't do anything about it or would not help. But, we see the 

8 larger category of people usually say something along the lines of, "it wasn't 

9 important enough to report to the police" or they ”did something else about it.” 

10 Or other reasons. 

11 Edmund Cooke: Hate based crime? 

12 Barbara Oudekerk: I cannot speak to whether the public understands hate-based crimes. 

13 Committee Chair: Would anyone else like to respond? 

14 Kai Wiggins: This is Kai Wiggins of the Arab American Institute. I'd like to add that even when 

15 law enforcement responds or receives a report of hate crime, there are plenty 

16 of breakdowns that occur within the hate crime reporting system, that result in 

17 omissions from official statistics. So, for instance, at the events in Charlottesville 

18 in August 2017 are not reported in federal hate crime data. We discovered that 

19 as a result of a public records request to the Virginia State Police. Those aren't 

20 incidents that would take a victim to report them for law enforcement to 

21 respond. Similar high-profile omissions have occurred in other major hate crime 

22 cases. We got on this beat after the murder of Khalid Jabara, who was an Arab 

23 American in Tulsa Oklahoma, one of the highest profile hate crimes incidents in 

24 2016. Tulsa police department reported no data corresponding to that incident. 

25 As you'll see in my statement, I provide a table, that breaks down federal hate 

26 crime statistics in Virginia according to bias motivations, If you look at laws in 

27 Virginia, there're not protections or required reporting for sexual orientation, 

28 disability, gender and gender identity. Law enforcement in Virginia has never 

29 reported gender identity or gender motivated hate crimes to the FBI.

30 Well, there are other effects. For instance in the Arab American community 

31 there is a sense that U.S. counter-terrorism and national security policies, that 

32 have a discriminatory and disproportionate impact on members of the 

33 community, so, there might be a general fear or distress of working with law 

34 enforcement and there are things that happen in every community. For 

35 instance, in anti-LGBTQ hate crimes, there might be a fear of coming out, in the 

36 process of reporting victimization and many other things we can all speak to.

37 Committee Chair: Thank you.

APPENDIX B: TRANSCRIPT March 29, 2019 17 of 63
1 I will now ask a question on behalf of a member of the Committee who is not 

2 able to be here today. This is a question from Mr. Patrick O Reilly and it's 

3 directed to Ms. Oudekerk. Ms. Oudekerk, do you know of any studies that have 

4 investigated or established the full reliability and validity of the data on hate 

5 crimes, and if so, what methods were used, and what were the findings? 

6 Barbara Oudekerk: The National Institute of Justice has a portfolio of research on hate crimes, and 

7 they would be the best to speak to I think about the individual studies that they 

8 fund on hate crimes. I don't know at a national level, other than the two 

9 national sources that I spoke about today. I'm not sure of any other national 

10 level efforts that have specifically studied the reliability of hate crime data. My 

11 colleagues might know more.

12 Kai Wiggins: There is certainly very informative investigative journalism on this topic. I know 

13 the Documenting Hate Project – led by ProPublica − has done extensive work on 

14 this. There's actually a national media story through CBS and ABC affiliates that 

15 go into the accuracy of hate crime data. I don't know of any comprehensive 

16 study on these issues. We're working on efforts in Congress that would promote 

17 and improve data collection under the Hate Crimes Statistics Act, and one thing 

18 that could be done, is that the Justice Department do a comprehensive revue, 

19 assessing the relationship between these kind of intersecting and multi20 dimensional factors that I discussed. 

21 So, agencies would put in factors with respect to whether they have policies on 

22 hate crimes, state-level laws, legal framework, and then compliance with 

23 federal standards and guidelines. Is there a relationship between those factors 

24 and hate crime reporting rates? For instance, the law enforcement agencies, 

25 municipal police departments with highest reported rates of hate crime are 

26 those agencies like, Eugene Oregon, Boston Massachusetts, Seattle Washington, 

27 Washington DC, that have comprehensive hate crime policies and devote a lot 

28 of resources and that are also in states with comprehensive hate crime laws. 

29 Major American cities with low reported hate crime rates, often are those cities 

30 in the south, but have deep, dark histories racial and ethnic violence, but no, 

31 generally speaking, agency or institutional focus on hate crime prevention, and 

32 a lack of relevant state laws focused on hate crime prevention. And, we think 

33 that, that's not a coincidence there. Though often I will say that with respect to 

34 the effort in Congress, we would consider requiring certain states and even local 

35 governments receiving federal grants to collect information from certain sub36 recipients of those grants on the policies and programs that they have in place 

37 to assist that study. And, from there they will provide the federal government 

38 with resources to develop better policies while also providing meaningful 

39 information to the general assembly or local advocates on the nature and extent 

40 of hate crime prevention in their communities.

41 Committee Chair: Thank you. Claire Gastañga.

42 Glaire Gastañaga: Joe, are you still on the phone?

APPENDIX B: TRANSCRIPT March 29, 2019 18 of 63
1 Joe Plantania: I am still here, I am hearing everything except some of the questions being 

2 posed, but the answers are coming through loud and clear, and I am still here.

3 Glaire Gastañaga: This is Claire Gastañga and I have a question for you. A number of the panelists 

4 have talked about the events and the facts that our hate crimes reporting law 

5 and our penalty enhancement act do not include gender, gender identity, sexual 

6 orientation among the terms that are defined as hate crimes. Have you talked 

7 with or do you know if the VA Association of Commonwealth Attorneys has 

8 come out in favor of expanding the hate crimes statutes in Virginia and, do you 

9 think it would improve the chances of passage for this bill that is being 

10 introduced now for probably six to eight years in supported by Equality of 

11 Virginia and others? Do you think it would improve the chances of passage if the 

12 VA Association of Commonwealth Attorneys, the VA Association of Chiefs of 

13 Police, and the VA Sheriffs Association all came out in favor of expanding the 

14 hate crimes statute to cover those additional categories including disability?

15 Joe Plantania: Thank you for the question. I've been in office for about fifteen months and am 

16 still learning about the interplay between the 120 elected Commonwealth 

17 Attorneys that represent their own municipality and the interplay between 

18 those 120 offices and VACA (VA Association of Commonwealth Attorneys), 

19 which is the state wide organization of Commonwealth Attorneys. So, I can only 

20 speak for myself, and my representation of the City Charlottesville. I am 

21 certainly very supportive of that. VACA is its own entity and does its own thing. I 

22 don’t know how frequently, but I have many positions that are different than 

23 VACA. I've been told, each individual Commonwealth Attorney can speak for 

24 themselves, so I really don't want to get into what VACA should or should not 

25 do, but I'm personally very much in favor. I think Kai spoke really eloquently and 

26 persuasively on that we're missing a lot of stuff and, to me, it's something that's 

27 important to capture and to know and to be aware of. And right now that's not 

28 on the books. So, I'm not trying to duck your question for the statewide 

29 position, but personally I would be very much in favor of advocating for that, I 

30 think it would be a good idea.

31 Glaire Gastañaga: I have a follow up question about the specifics regarding the rather disturbing

32 testimony that none of the events that occurred in Charlottesville were 

33 reported to the state police as hate crimes, even though a number of panelists 

34 have pointed out our hate crimes reporting law in Virginia includes any criminal 

35 act, any illegal act, or any other incident as determined by law enforcement 

36 authorities that was intended to intimidate or harass people based on race, 

37 religion or national origin. And, I'm curious whether you think there's, given that 

38 the Superintendent of the State Police has full authority under the statute, to 

39 prescribe the form, time and manner of the reporting to local law enforcement 

40 agencies. I'm curious as to whether you think there might be a way, without 

41 having to change any law, to enhance, at least, the data that's available on these 

42 particular the issues raised - race, religion and national origin. So that our state 

43 data is accurate, and that the state police can report back to the federal 

44 government and improve the accuracy of the federal government's data, given 

APPENDIX B: TRANSCRIPT March 29, 2019 19 of 63
1 that local reporting directly to the feds is voluntary. But, I wonder if you could 

2 comment on why you think the local law enforcement agency in Charlottesville 

3 would not have reported these incidents under the current statute that is 

4 currently written to the state police.

5 Joe Platania: Again, I have not received Kai’s materials and written recommendations, I'd be 

6 very interested in looking at those. Yes, we have identified a significant and 

7 serious problem and issue that needs to be addressed. I can't really summarize 

8 it better than the concerns that you laid out in your question. I think that it's a 

9 training issue that needs to be addressed, and again I haven't seen Kia’s 

10 recommendations. I'm sure they're quite thorough and detailed. Both the state 

11 police and the Charlottesville police department and all law enforcement 

12 agencies need to be doing a better job than that.

13 I again want to be careful that I only speak for the Charlottesville 

14 Commonwealth Attorney’s Office. We're a separate and independent entity 

15 from the state police and the city police. But, yes, there needs to be something 

16 done to address getting more accurate reporting data in the hands of the 

17 people that need it. I'm not quite sure how you do that, I think you make a good 

18 point, I'm not sure it needs to be formalized or codified, I think there are people 

19 that are far more intelligent than I on this issue. Maybe we start with training 

20 and say, can we fix it that way. But, yes, it's a problem that needs to be 

21 addressed. And, I don't know why they're not getting the accurate numbers to 

22 who it needs to be in the hands of. I don't have an answer to that.

23 Committee Chair: Thank you very much.

24 Toa Do: Mr. Chairman, I would like to reserve my time at the panel too because my 

25 comments and questions are within both panels, and I hope this isn't going to 

26 stay until the end. Thank you.

27 Committee Chair: We're now going to turn to questions from Committee members that are on the 

28 phone. What I'll do is work down the list. If you don't have a question just 

29 indicate that you don't want to use your time and I'll move on to the next 

30 person.

31 Robert Bracknell are you with us?

32 Robert Bracknell: I am. No question. Thank you.

33 Committee Chair: Mr. Cameron

34 Mr. Cameron: Yes, I have a question. Can you hear me?

35 Committee Chair: Yes, please go ahead.

APPENDIX B: TRANSCRIPT March 29, 2019 20 of 63
1 Bruce, we can hear you, go ahead.

2 Bruce Cameron: I heard one of the panelists refer to the current environment of hate, and it 

3 seems that a number of the papers that have been presented refer to this 

4 theme of hate crimes being on the rise. My question to the panelists is this, I've 

5 gone back and looked at the official reports of the Virginia state police, and in 

6 2000, the hate crimes reported were 357; in 2001 they were 409; in 2008 they 

7 were 337. Now those are two to three times the amount of the current 

8 numbers reported. How do the panelists explain that?

9 Committee Chair: To all the panelists, just go ahead and identify yourselves as you respond. 

10 Kai Wiggins: I can answer that in two parts. The Committee member identified data from 

11 2000 and 2001. If we can recall there was an incredible backlash of hate crimes 

12 targeting Arab American and American Muslim communities and those 

13 perceived to be Arab and Muslim, and Sikh Americans suffered greatly from this 

14 backlash. If you look at the historical data, it's off the charts. Actually, in Federal 

15 hate crime statistics in 2017 we saw the single greatest increase since 2001 −

16 that backlash − and the first three consecutive annual increases since 2001.

17 I will also note that it's difficult in reviewing historical hate crime data, given the 

18 general culture and attitude regarding proactivities of hate crime reporting. The 

19 federal Hate Crime Statistics Act was passed in 1990, and I think some experts, 

20 who have been in this game for a long time, refer to the 90's as a more generally 

21 proactive time when it came to hate crime reporting and data collection. I think 

22 they refer to hate crime as the cause celeb of criminology back in the 90's. So I 

23 think, those might have effects. It could be even as simple as, agencies had 

24 programs for reporting hate crime, and those agents or officers who really led 

25 that effort, left or retired, so, there's a lack of accountability .

26 I will also note that generally in American public discourse, there's a higher 

27 sensitivity to hate crime right now and that could have some effect on hate 

28 crime reporting rates. However representing a civil rights and advocacy 

29 organization and working in coalition with other civil rights and advocacy

30 organizations and groups, that collect incident data outside of the criminal

31 justice system, not within official channels, there is a general sense that hate 

32 crime and bias motivated targeting is indeed on the rise in communities. And I 

33 would say the increases reflected in federal statistics compliment that, but I will 

34 concede that there are inaccuracies, there is a general trend of underreporting 

35 reflected in the data. 

36 Committee Chair: Would any of the other panelist like to weigh-in on that?

37 Mary McCord: Yes thank you. I know that at the second panel we will have somebody from the 

38 Anti-Defamation League who will probably be able to speak to those statistics. 

39 But, I would note their most recent data of 2018, the highest number of 

40 fatalities based on domestic extremism − about 50 fatalities resulted from 

APPENDIX B: TRANSCRIPT March 29, 2019 21 of 63
1 attacks by someone who was tied with the far right extremist ideology − were 

2 committed last year. The highest number since 1995 when the Oklahoma City 

3 Bombing occurred. 

4 Mary McCord: So, I will also just say in my experience when I was at the Department of Justice, 

5 we had a domestic terrorism counsel, who tried his best with the very poor data 

6 reporting that was available, to keep track through every possible method of 

7 what he was seeing in terms of hate crimes and incidents of domestic terrorism. 

8 Hate crimes and incidents of domestic terrorism. These are kind of like a Venn 

9 Diagram. Some things might be both, some things might only be hate crimes, or 

10 only terrorism. And what we saw, late 2016, into 2017, already was extremely 

11 alarming in terms of the sheer numbers of hate crimes, and domestic terrorism 

12 incidents over just the previous year.

13 Committee Chair: Thank you. Bruce, do you have a follow-up?

14 Bruce Cameron: Well yes, it's a follow up comment. If the answer to me, is that it's under15 reported now, how can that explain the over-reporting, apparently, in 2000, 

16 2001, and 2008? Not just 2000, 2001 but in 2008 the hate crimes reported 337, 

17 approximately twice the rate currently raised in these reports that are 

18 presented to the Committee. 

19 Committee Chair: Would anyone like to comment on that? 

20 Bruce, you presented that as a comment. None of the panelists wants to 

21 respond to that right now. 

22 Bruce Cameron: Well, thank you, Shiek. 

23 Committee Chair: Okay. Ms. Combs, do you have a question?

24 Sara Combs: No questions.

25 Committee Chair: Ms. Dietrich-Hall. 

26 Vellie Dietrich-Hall: No questions. Thank you.

27 Mary McCord: Can I go back and try to address, maybe to some extent, Mr. Cameron's 

28 question?

29 Committee Chair: Please. 

30 Mary McCord: I think some of what Mr. Wiggins said earlier, addresses this. The point is the 

31 statistics are terrible. They just are. The federal government hasn't kept good 

32 statistics, it hasn't been able to through the voluntary reporting systems that it 

33 uses − that we've just been talking about for the last half an hour. That means 

APPENDIX B: TRANSCRIPT March 29, 2019 22 of 63
1 states are all over the board when it comes to what they report. Some 

2 jurisdictions report absolutely nothing. I can't tell you exactly, other than what 

3 Mr. Wiggins has already said, why reporting seemed to be better in 2001, 

4 except to acknowledge the environment in 2001. I think none of us can ignore 

5 what was happening at that time, and the incredible backlash after the terrorist 

6 attacks in New York and elsewhere.

7 Mary McCord: So there was a lot of, I think, public discourse at that time, and encouragement 

8 to report acts of hate that, you know, ebbs and flows over the time. And it was a 

9 period that I hope to never repeat in my lifetime, in terms of its impact on our 

10 country. And I think that that has a lot to do with why we saw that increase in 

11 2001. I'm not really sure about 2008. I'd have to correlate that to things going 

12 on at the time. But, I don't think you're going to find an explanation. What I 

13 think this illustrates, is just how poor and how inadequate and inaccurate the 

14 hate crimes reporting is.

15 Committee Chair: Before we get to Mr. Wiggins, Miss Gastañaga has a comment.

16 Claire Gastañaga: 2008 was a very definable year in Virginia. From 2006 to 2008, there was a lot 

17 going on with respect to the Prince William Stop and ID Ordinance. And, in 

18 2008, in that legislative session alone, there were 134 bills that were defined as 

19 anti-immigrant, that were introduced. It was an issue in the 2007 fall elections. 

20 It was very much a very heightened period of awareness in Virginia about ethnic 

21 hostility particularly, and so it is not surprising at all to me to that the state 

22 police data for those years would reflect something different from the national 

23 data, and also something different year over year, with respect to Virginia.

24 Committee Chair: Mr. Wiggins, I believe you had a comment.

25 Kai Wiggins: I should also add that 2008 was an election year, and particularly a notable one.

26 One aspect that might affect the hate crime reporting is, we're currently 

27 undergoing a transition in the method and formant our law enforcement 

28 agencies use to report hate crimes, and in all crimes up to the FBI.

29 Historically, law enforcement officers, agents have reported hate crimes using 

30 the summary reporting system, which is now a rather antiquated format that 

31 communicates a narrow amount of information, and which could also require a 

32 supplemental incident report form when reporting. We are now undergoing a 

33 transition to the national incident-based reporting system, which represents a 

34 far more comprehensive and detailed data collection, and communicates a vast 

35 number of granular details regarding hate crime.

36 However, this system is indeed more complicated, and requires more training 

37 and resources. I can speak anecdotally, based on my research. In 2017, the 

38 entire state of Nevada reported five hate crimes. That was, in large part, due to 

39 the fact that the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, one the largest 

APPENDIX B: TRANSCRIPT March 29, 2019 23 of 63
1 police departments in the country in terms of population served, reported zero 

2 hate crimes. Typically, they report anywhere between 50 to 100. They represent 

3 a population of 1.6 million people. 

4 Kai Wiggins: I spoke to folks within the department of, I believe, Public Safety. It's hard for 

5 me to remember all the agency titles from state to state. I was told that it was 

6 largely an issue that resulted from the transition to NIBRS (National Incident7 Based Reporting System). These law enforcement agencies were not prepared 

8 to report accurately, and that was something they anticipated − a general 

9 depression in the accuracy − and then a gradual increase of dependability as 

10 they became accustomed to NIBRS. 

11 I can also speak to an incident in Olathe, Kansas, another major omission of a 

12 hate crime. On February 22, 2017, an Indian immigrant named Srinivas 

13 Kuchbhotla was killed in a local bar because of his national origin. While the 

14 Olathe Police Department reported that crime up to the Kansas Bureau of 

15 Investigation (KBI), the Olathe Police Department has limited resources, and 

16 used the summary reporting system format. I spoke to both the Tulsa Police 

17 Department, and the KBI, and they said they were not able to aggregate that 

18 incident into their instant based reporting collection, such that it was not 

19 reflected in the federal data.

20 So there are a lot of different, sorts of clerical or technical issues that contribute 

21 to underreporting. And I think that transition to NIBRS, as it's ramping up as we 

22 approach 2021, when the FBI will retire its summary reporting system, is 

23 contributing to some of the depressed reporting that we're seeing.

24 Committee Chair: Thank you.

25 Joe Platania: May I make a general comment?

26 Committee Chair: Sure, go ahead.

27 Joe Platania: So, I forgot the gentleman who pointed out the apparent discrepancies in the in 

28 the three years. 

29 Bruce Cameron, thank you. It is a very general point. We have a local task force 

30 that's the evidence-based decision making task force, and it's all the different 

31 relevant stakeholders in our community: judge, defense prosecutor, mental 

32 health, substance abuse, police and social services.

33 When we engage in criminal justice reform, we are very, sort of, cognizant of 

34 needing legitimacy, and we rely on accurate data and accurate reporting 

35 systems, and you need good data in for there to be good data out. And, one of 

36 the things I just want to reflect, and summarize what everyone's been saying, 

37 starting with Professor McCord is, I'm just hearing that it sounds standardless 

APPENDIX B: TRANSCRIPT March 29, 2019 24 of 63
1 and lacking in uniformity. And I think this is one of the things, I think, that many 

2 of the panelists are doing work to address that, and is just so vital for legitimacy, 

3 and integrity, and credibility that when you talk about this stuff across the 

4 spectrum of people and beliefs, you have to get these numbers accurate and 

5 right.

6 And it sounds like Kai is just identifying, even though it's anecdotally, and there 

7 was a question posed about Virginia's reporting with the state police, we really 

8 need to sort of address getting some standards, and some uniformity in this 

9 process. It does not sound like we have it, which impacts our discussion about it 

10 when, when people want to question it. That's just a general observation.

11 Committee Chair: Thank you. I'd like to move on to the next question. Mr. Suh, are you still with 

12 us?

13 Ryung Suh: Yes. I work in an academic setting, and anecdotally we have seen a rise in hate 

14 speech − it's not so much hate crime − and my question is, are academic 

15 institutions required to report hate crimes and is that inclusive of incidents of 

16 hate speech?

17 Kai Wiggins: Public universities are required to report hate crimes. I can't remember the 

18 specific federal authority. They are.

19 Committee Chair: Would somebody else like to comment on that?

20 Barbara Oudekerk: I'll just say, I think the difference that you pointed out is important. The 

21 difference between a crime versus something that might not raise to the level of 

22 a crime. So, some of that plays into the context here as well, and we're thinking 

23 about the context of hate that's different than crimes of hate.

24 Committee Chair: Ryung, do you have a follow-up question?

25 Ryung Suh: No follow-up question.

26 Committee Chair: Okay. We actually have a little bit of extra time, so I'm going to ask the question 

27 now, and then Terrie Griffin has questions. If any other members, either on the 

28 phone, or on the dais here, have a second question, hopefully, we'll have 

29 enough time to get those in.

30 I actually have two. My first question is directed to a Professor McCord and Mr.

31 Platania. You both referenced the dual layers of the prosecution of Mr. Fields, at 

32 the state level and then the plea that came out earlier this week. I wonder if 

33 both of you could comment a little bit on what lessons we can take from the 

34 way in which the two layers unfolded is instructive for us − in terms of how to 

35 address some of the holes that have come up, and that each of our panelists 

36 have addressed in a different format. Is there a lesson to be learned from the 

APPENDIX B: TRANSCRIPT March 29, 2019 25 of 63
1 way we approached the Fields case from two different sides that we can take 

2 forward as we consider best practices. So, Professor McCord and Mr. Platania. 

3 Mary McCord: So why don't you start, since you actually prosecuted Mr. Fields, and then I'll 

4 chime in.

5 Joe Platania : Yeah. Mary said something earlier, that's extremely important, and struck me 

6 and I wrote it down. She was talking about some of her work and she's, you 

7 know, nationally, if not internationally, recognized. But she talked about the 

8 work being content neutral, and not trying to criminalize ideology. I think one of 

9 the things we learned from the Fields prosecution and I don't mean this in any 

10 way to offend the trauma that the victims, and Susan and her family went 

11 through, but we were very careful to say we were not prosecuting ideology, we 

12 were prosecuting conduct − the conduct of Mr. Fields. And that's just the 

13 elements that we had to prove, and I think we achieved a result where he'll 

14 never be walking amongst us again, appropriately.

15 But I guess the flip side of that is, we definitely felt some of the public 

16 dissatisfaction with, not more directly, in a public forum, in a public trial, 

17 addressing what really happened in this community and what, you know, the 

18 belief set of the victims were, and why they were targeted. So, it was a tough 

19 needle to thread for us. We tried to be meticulous in our presentation of the 

20 evidence relating to the conduct of Mr. Fields, not his ideology, as hateful, and 

21 racist, and awful as it was. There were a few things the judge let in. There was a 

22 text message he sent to his mother about that they need to be afraid, with an 

23 image of Hitler. We were very careful to say to the judge, we're not arguing that 

24 he should be convicted because of the posting of the Hitler image, but because 

25 it showed his mindset, that he wanted to go and hurt people, that we're going 

26 to be there on the other side.

27 But there was a tension there that we felt throughout, with people, I think, 

28 wanting there to be something a little more explicit that we tried to shy away 

29 from. I don't know if that really answers the question, but it was certainly 

30 something that was present throughout the entire case.

31 Whereas the federal prosecutors, and Mary can speak to this more intelligently, 

32 they were explicitly able to charge a crime with an element related to ideology, 

33 that's part of the code section they charge him under, and they had federal 

34 prosecutors from the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice, that go 

35 all over the country and specialize in that. I think one of the gentleman that 

36 prosecuted Dylan Roof, down in South Carolina, was sort of instrumental in 

37 working through their case.

38 That's my general comment. I'll turn it over to Mary, and if there's any follow 

39 from what I just said, I'd be happy to answer that.

APPENDIX B: TRANSCRIPT March 29, 2019 26 of 63
1 Mary McCord: Yeah, thank you Joe. So, I think Joe very eloquently explained, you know, the 

2 state's interest is always, of course, first and foremost, is making sure that a 

3 person who's committed heinous crimes like murders, and malicious wounding 

4 pays the penalty, and you know, Mr. Platania was very successful in the 

5 prosecution of James Fields, as well as others.

6 But you know, the criminal code exists for more reasons than obtaining just 

7 punishment. It also exists as a way of showing societal condemnation, moral 

8 condemnation, and that's why I think our federal code has enacted hate crimes 

9 statues, as well as many states, and that's why, also frankly, that we have 

10 terrorism statutes in the federal codes and in many states, because these crimes 

11 go beyond the mere personal one on one nature of a local crime, a local 

12 murder, a local, other violent crime. I've prosecuted both in the District of 

13 Columbia.

14 These crimes, whether it's to send this hateful message, or this intimidation 

15 message that terrorists send, they really transcend those local boundaries, 

16 those state boundaries, they even transcend, in many cases, national 

17 boundaries.

18 When we look now at what happened in New Zealand just a couple of weeks 

19 ago, and how we're seeing, now, connections between white supremacists all 

20 over the world, and how they are modeling their behaviors and their tactics on 

21 each other, and frankly on the same tactics, and behaviors, and recruiting tools 

22 used by terrorists who further foreign terrorist organizations.

23 So, what I think is a good sign from this Fields prosecution, is you were able to 

24 send, you were able to accomplish both of these. Now every prosecution, every 

25 investigation, every crime isn't going to warrant that kind of resources at both 

26 the state and federal level, but for some cases, and Dylan Roof, I think, is 

27 another excellent example, and if we had a domestic terrorism crime on the 

28 federal books, I darn sure would've loved to prosecute Dylan Roof, and James

29 Fields Bill, for both of those if that existed in federal law. But each time they at 

30 least were able to use the hate crimes in federal statute to send that bigger, 

31 broader message. And labels are important. It's not just, it's not just semantics, 

32 it sends a message of how important our government feels that these crimes 

33 are. 

34 Committee Chair: So, Professor McCord, if I could follow up and segue, slightly, based on what you 

35 just said. You talked earlier about how domestic terrorism laws, or how some of 

36 these same acts were treated separately under the criminal code versus 

37 terrorism. And, obviously ideology is such a fundamental part in the definition 

38 of terrorism. I wonder whether the lines delineating ideology from intent, which 

39 sort of more applies in the criminal context, but how you would take the lessons 

40 from the definitional aspect of terrorism, and apply that. Is that the way to sort 

41 of bridge this hole that I was pointing to? 

APPENDIX B: TRANSCRIPT March 29, 2019 27 of 63
1 Mary McCord: So, you know, I think we need to be careful. Hate crimes are a little bit different 

2 because it's specified that they're motivated by a particular bias, whether it's 

3 racial bias, religious bias, gender identity and such, the things we've been talking 

4 about. What's different about terrorism, it can also be straight political bias, but 

5 it is a crime that is accomplished for this purpose of intimidation or coercion, 

6 and that's key to it.

7 So, that can be very content neutral, right? It can be what we think of as a far 

8 right cause, what we think about as a far left cause, and what it has been most 

9 frequently used for, because the federal code skews so much toward it, what 

10 I'm just going to put in air quotes, “international terrorism,” has primarily been 

11 used to prosecute Islamist extremist terrorism, and that's because that's what is 

12 provided for in the federal code. Unless other acts of terrorism are done with a 

13 weapon of mass destruction, or the target is US property, or a US official, you, 

14 for the most part, don't have federal terrorism offenses available.

15 And so this why one of the gaps I think we currently see, and one reason I think

16 it's important for Congress to consider a federal domestic terrorism crime, is to 

17 recognize the significance of the domestic terrorist threat, which is, right now, 

18 in the United States, very much on par with and exceeds, in terms of lethality 

19 and actual injury or harm to people, exceeds the threat from foreign terrorist 

20 organization inspired violence. That's just the fact.

21 And yes, lots of violence overseas, and certainly 9/11 was, you know, was 

22 something that I'm putting aside in terms of statistics right now, because those 

23 numbers were off the charts, but since 9/11, the domestic terrorist threat has 

24 shown itself to be just as great as the international terrorist threat. And so, 

25 ideology aside, those should be put on the same plane, which would bring with 

26 it resources, and frankly, better data collection.

27 Committee Chair: Thank you. Mr. Wiggins.

28 Kai Wiggins: On that question, I think we have more to say about this, but I will note that we 

29 of the American Institute have deep concerns about efforts to expand systems 

30 under which certain communities have been subject to unjust treatment, on 

31 that being your US national security policy, and counter terrorism efforts.

32 I understand the intent, but we do have vast concerns, and it can be backed up 

33 anecdotally. For instance, there was a report in the Guardian just recently, that 

34 the FBI opened a domestic terrorism enterprise investigation -- enterprise 

35 investigations are directed at organizations and their structure -- into a civil 

36 rights group that had convened a counter protest event against Traditionalist 

37 Workers Party and the KKK.

38 In that investigation, the KKK were treated as victims, and already, under federal 

39 law, you know, federal law enforcement has vast resources and authorities to 

40 investigate, and surveil criminal activity that can be defined, as I understood, as 

APPENDIX B: TRANSCRIPT March 29, 2019 28 of 63
1 domestic terrorism. So, we do have deep concerns about that, and I'm happy to 

2 discuss our analysis of unsealed international terrorism related indictments that 

3 can also speak to the data collection pieces as well.

4 The National Security Division publishes unsealed indictments on international 

5 related terrorist cases, and they explicitly say that they use a vast array of 

6 federal criminal statutes to aggregate these data. If you look at, I think there are 

7 about 550 cases since 9/11, most of those cases were not, charges were not 

8 brought involving, you know, material support for foreign terrorist organization, 

9 which is a 2339b under criminal code, or crimes of terrorism transcending 

10 national boundaries.

11 Only nine cases, or nine indictments involve those charges, and those are 

12 generally the federal, international terrorism statutes that we measure against 

13 the lack of domestic terrorism laws.

14 Committee Chair: You raised a good point, Mr. Wiggins, but I'm afraid my time is up. So, I'm going 

15 to turn it over to Ms. Griffin for her questions. 

16 Ms. Griffin: First, let me thank all of the panelists for their in-depth knowledge and 

17 expertise, and even your passion. Greatly appreciate it.

18 Moving away from terrorism. Can you talk a little bit about, or address, hate 

19 speech in social media? You know, what are we doing here? Are there any 

20 current modalities to address that? How are we collecting data from that? Can 

21 you just speak on that please?

22 Mary McCord: Yes, thank you. I think a couple of things need to just be very clear from the 

23 outset. Oftentimes you'll hear from social media companies that say, based on 

24 the First Amendment, they don't want to police hateful speech. And, I think it's 

25 important, and I'm sure everyone here on this Committee realizes that private 

26 companies are not actually bound by the first amendment. I think they, like 

27 most Americans, believe in the value of free speech, and the free flow of ideas, 

28 and they don't want to suppress ideas, but the fact is they don't have to comply 

29 with the First Amendment. They're not the government. We did just see 

30 Facebook this week recognize that merely banning white supremacists was not 

31 sufficient, because white nationalism is a proxy for, or a euphemism for white 

32 supremacy and they took a stronger stand on that.

33 I understand their concerns about, you know, suppressing ideologies. But I think 

34 another point, to be clear about, is that incitement to violence, violence itself, 

35 speech that directs violence, of course, is not protected. Even if the First 

36 Amendment did apply to these social media companies, and certainly a lot of 

37 these ideologies, and a lot of the things that are going on the Internet right now, 

38 wouldn't cross that line yet into incitement of violence, but it's a precursor to it, 

39 and it's an area where those who are like-minded in their motivation − and, 

40 today it seems to be a lot of very far right extremist white supremacist 

APPENDIX B: TRANSCRIPT March 29, 2019 29 of 63
1 ideologies − they find a common place, just like we saw in international 

2 terrorism for years, a common place where they can unite with each other. They 

3 tend to think their ideology is more mainstream than it is, because they can 

4 isolate themselves in forums and chat rooms where they just hear it over and 

5 over and over, and they amplify each other's messages, and then, I think, get 

6 the sense that it's more mainstream and more acceptable.

7 And what we saw in Charlottesville, was actually this effort to say we are going 

8 to step out of the virtual Internet space, and show that we actually have power, 

9 and we can take physical space. Not unlike what we've seen, again overseas 

10 with foreign terrorist groups saying, "We're getting off of the Internet now and 

11 we're going to take property," and this is something that social media is 

12 beginning, you know, they were late to wake up to their own platforms being 

13 used by international extremists. They've been late to wake up to their own 

14 platforms being used by domestic extremists. And if it continues, public 

15 pressure is important, while respecting, not just First Amendment rights but the 

16 values that free speech i3ncludes.

17 Joe Platania: This is anecdotal, but we've had numerous instances of online, hateful, racist 

18 commentary directed at specific people in the City of Charlottesville. It's been 

19 discovered either by law enforcement, or the person at whom the speech is 

20 specifically directed at on social media. And I would sort of echo what Mary just 

21 said. These people are also extremely sophisticated, and they know right where 

22 that line is, and you read something, and have to bring a victim in to explain why 

23 it's not a prosecutable crime, because it's protected First Amendment speech. 

24 And again, it's a tough conversation to have, because you read how vile, with 

25 the writing is on social media, and identify someone by name, but they go right 

26 to that line, and don't cross it into criminal conduct. So, we're seeing certainly 

27 more and more of that, and I don't want to over compliment some of these 

28 folks, but they have a sophisticated knowledge of what they can do, and they're 

29 doing it.

30 Mary McCord: Yes. 

31 Ms. Griffin: The question that I have now is for all members of the panel. Given your areas 

32 of expertise, what recommendations would you provide that we can include in 

33 our report to the Commission, that are doable? 

34 Joe Platania: I'll start. I think I probably have the shortest answer. It sort of goes back, I'll 

35 repeat it again, Mary's statement about not prosecuting ideology, but conduct, 

36 and being content neutral.

37 I was also really struck by what Kai said about their proposal, and I apologize, I 

38 don't have it in front of me, but I think to be overly reactive, and not thoughtful, 

39 with some things going forward, it can do more harm than good. There's a local 

40 judge that says every time you create a rule, the exception walks through the 

41 door. So, I liked what Kai's proposal involved, which is getting some very smart 

APPENDIX B: TRANSCRIPT March 29, 2019 30 of 63
1 people around the table to study this, and to think it through to make sure that 

2 it's going to be addressing the concerns that we're trying to address, and so I 

3 again don't have Kai's proposal in front of me, but just listening to him today, 

4 I'm quite sure it's something I would personally endorse, getting a working 

5 group together to sort of study this problem and come up with some specific 

6 recommendations. That's a very general answer. I'm sure my colleagues have 

7 more specifics.

8 Kai Wiggins: I will begin just by saying, if the Committee finds it helpful, I'm happy to provide 

9 full documentation of the work we did to both discover that Charlottesville was 

10 not reported in federal hate crime statistics and state statistics, and 

11 documentation of the conversation that we had with the Charlottesville police 

12 department regarding that omission. Based on our interface with them, it seems 

13 like there was confusion in general, with respect to: how hate crimes are 

14 reported through the UCR system, and investigated and reported as such and 

15 labeled as hate crimes; what that relationship is when, you know, hate crime 

16 charges are brought in as to the criminal investigation. 

17 And, it speaks to some of these issues at the agency level, both with respect to 

18 whether they have policies and different programs, or resources devoted to 

19 hate crime. So, that's more on an agency level recommendation. We need to get 

20 agencies to be proactive on hate crime. 

21 We also need to ensure that our cultural, institutional attitudes toward hate 

22 crime, you know, there's an understanding of how severe they are, and how 

23 they're distinct from other forms of crime. 

24 At the state level, I mean, as we've talked about, we would hope that the 

25 General Assembly considers expanding protections in there hate crime statutes, 

26 and perhaps, you know, changing the framework with respect to, kind of a 

27 narrow range of criminal conduct that's encompassed in there. And we would 

28 also, you know, extend that recommendation to the data collection laws as well. 

29 And, I believe Committee member Gastañaga has mentioned, you know, there 

30 are laws in the books in Virginia, you know, relating to procedure, and whatnot, 

31 really, on hate crime reporting, and maybe that's something we could address.

32 I think we should also get the General Assembly to work with the Department of 

33 Criminal Justice Services in determining the potential viability of a law requiring, 

34 and explicating more specifically what constitutes a good hate crime training, 

35 and you know, enforcing that as a, you know, a mandatory basic and in-service

36 training. That's something we should consider up to the federal level, you know, 

37 the federal recommendations we have involved, and seek accountability and 

38 correspondence with the state in the agency level, and speaking to the nature of 

39 the national hate crime reporting system. I think that's a good way to do it.

APPENDIX B: TRANSCRIPT March 29, 2019 31 of 63
1 We are happy to provide, you know, the recommendations provided in our 

2 written statement, we're happy to provide that to both my fellow panelists, and 

3 I've already submitted to the Committee. 

4 Ms. Griffin: Thank you. We will be happy to receive it. 

5 Barbara Oudekerk: In my role today, I'm focused on data, and so the only recommendation I would 

6 offer is just when you're looking at the national statistics, to really take to heart 

7 some of the differences that we talked about today, and that are shown in the 

8 materials about the different approaches to analyzing and collecting data. 

9 Because when we start looking at how complementary different collections are, 

10 they are really different data sets still. It’s important to consider, what might be 

11 reported to police is different than what we might collect through the national 

12 crime victimization survey, for example, the types of victims they cover, and the 

13 types of crimes they cover are all different. Some of the patterns are going to be 

14 different across the two data sets. So, just to keep that in mind as you think 

15 about the national data.

16 Ms. Griffin: Thank you.

17 Mary McCord: Yes, thank you. I agree with, I think, all of the proposals of Kai, particularly I 

18 think clarification−because we do know reporting under the UCR is so poor−

19 clarification that what needs to be reported does not have to be something that 

20 is prosecuted as a hate crime. In Virginia we don't have a general hate crimes 

21 statute. That's already so self-limiting. It's almost useless, if people don't 

22 understand, and with that's going to have to come − more training. I just don't 

23 think enough has focused on getting the training out at every level of law 

24 enforcement, to understand what they're supposed to be reporting.

25 As I've already indicated in terms of a legislative proposal at the state level, I 

26 think it's critical to clarify that Virginia Code: Section 15.2-9-15 does not prohibit 

27 reasonable, generally applicable public safety guidelines. Hamstringing law 

28 enforcement, when we've seen the kind of events we've seen in Virginia is just 

29 unconscionable.

30 And then I would also encourage the additional sort of training of local law 

31 enforcement and state, on some of these existing anti-paramilitary activities 

32 statutes, so they could perhaps be more proactive in thinking through. I don’t 

33 know if there are any training camps in Virginia for extremist groups who are 

34 planning to march or appear at events. There might be, I don’t know. It’s worth 

35 looking into and trying to use the statutes. Thank you.

36 Ms. Griffin: Thank you.

37 Committee Chair: Thank you. We actually have time, if other members either on the dais or on the 

38 phone have a second question. [No members on the dais wished to be 

39 recognized.]

APPENDIX B: TRANSCRIPT March 29, 2019 32 of 63
1 Committee Chair: Any members on the phone? Do you have a second question that you would like 

2 to ask Panel 1? 

3 Sara Combs: This is Sara Combs. I have no questions. Thank you.

4 Robert Bracknell: No, nothing else.

5 Committee Chair: Anyone else?

6 Okay. Well, I greatly appreciate all the times that our panels I've put in, not only 

7 being here today and sharing your thoughts, but also in particular, gathering 

8 information and your written statements that you've already provided to us. I 

9 haven't had a chance to go through all of it. I'm going to go through it again, in 

10 conjunction with what you said today. I really appreciate your time. Thank you 

11 very much.

12 We’ll take a brief break so we can assemble our second panel.

13 PANEL 2 [NEED CLARIFICATIONS FR: Claire: p. 47, lines 20, 36]

14 Committee Chair: Thank you everyone. We're ready to resume, so we can please come to order.

15 Our second panel is now assembled, and they will be sharing their expertise on 

16 preventing and responding to hate crimes, and what Virginia can and should do 

17 differently. Our panelists are: Professor, Liz Coston, from the Department of 

18 Sociology at Virginia Commonwealth University, in Richmond; Doron Ezickson, 

19 Director of the Washington DC Region of the Anti-Defamation League; Harpreet 

20 Mokha, National Program Manager for Muslims, Arabs, South Asian, Sikh, and 

21 Hindu Communities for the Community Relations Service of the US Department 

22 of Justice; Brian Johns, Executive Director of Virginia Organizing in 

23 Charlottesville, which also has multiple chapters throughout Virginia.

24 The same rules applies from the first panel. The panelists will have roughly 

25 seven minutes for their opening statement. At the conclusion of all of your 

26 opening statements, we'll go to questions from the members here on the dais, 

27 as well as on the phone. And I would just remind each of you, both with your 

28 opening statement and when you're asked questions, if you could please 

29 identify yourself before you speak for the recording. That said, you have seven 

30 minutes, Professor Coston. 

31 Liz Coston: Good afternoon. Before I begin, I would like to thank the Committee for inviting 

32 me to speak on such an important issue. I'm Dr. Liz Coston, a faculty member in 

33 the Department of Sociology, at Virginia Commonwealth University. My 

34 research examines hate crime perpetration and victimization, as well as post35 victimization service provision to victims, with specific attention to hate crimes 

36 against lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people. In addition to my 

37 research, I've also worked with community organizations that serve victims, 

APPENDIX B: TRANSCRIPT March 29, 2019 33 of 63
1 most recently as a board member with the Virginia Anti-Violence Project. It is 

2 especially important that we're examining responses to and prevention of hate 

3 crimes in this panel, as the number of hate crime incidents reported by the FBI 

4 have been on the rise since 2014. This is a trend that's evident both nationally 

5 and in Virginia. Despite the rise in violence, victims are often underserved by the 

6 institutions that are designed to respond to these crimes.

7 Liz Coston: For example, less than half of all hate crime victims report the incidents to 

8 police, and even fewer seek help from institutions that are poised to offer post9 victimization services, such as community organizations and health care 

10 providers. The magnitude of the problem coupled with the inadequacy of many 

11 post victimization services, necessitates that we better understand how to 

12 prevent hate crimes, as well as how to improve responses to these crimes when 

13 they do occur. Likewise, it is important that responses to hate crimes are 

14 tailored to consider their unique nature and consequences. As hate crimes differ 

15 from crimes that are not motivated by bias, specifically, they are more likely to 

16 be violent and more likely to be committed by multiple offenders. These factors 

17 also correspond with increased likelihood of injury to victims. In addition to the 

18 physical health consequences that can result from victimization, victims also 

19 often face serious long-term mental health consequences.

20 For example, increased anxiety, depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, and 

21 other negative mental health consequences. Furthermore, it's not just the 

22 individual targeted in a hate crime that suffers the negative impacts of 

23 victimization, but entire communities often experienced fear and anger as a 

24 result of these crimes. Well, my written statement covers national and Virginia 

25 legislation that addresses legal responses to hate crimes. Kai Wiggins earlier 

26 presented on these issues, and so I'm going to move us forward in my 

27 statement.

28 While a variety of legal responses exist to address hate crimes, legislation 

29 unfortunately doesn't stop those who choose to threaten harm or intimidate 

30 using violence. As such, it is critical that we also understand other responses to 

31 hate crimes and how to best serve victims. Unfortunately, many victims report 

32 experiencing secondary victimization, or further traumatization when 

33 interacting with the agencies that are meant to provide assistance to victims.

34 The criminal justice system is often difficult for victims of hate crimes to 

35 navigate. The evidentiary hurdles for identifying hate crimes often alienates 

36 victims. Police or prosecutors may not classify the incident as a hate crime, 

37 despite evidence that the incident was motivated by bias, and sometimes 

38 despite the victim's wishes to do so. Likewise, many victims of hate crimes forgo 

39 reporting to the police out of here that they'll be harassed by the police, or that 

40 the police won't take them seriously. This is especially true for racial and ethnic 

41 minorities, as well as lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people and 

42 disabled people. While individual departments may have community liaison 

43 officers that try to minimize these negative impacts, there has been relatively 

APPENDIX B: TRANSCRIPT March 29, 2019 34 of 63
1 little research into their effectiveness. While other services such, as the health 

2 care system, are a potential site of response to victims, several barriers exist 

3 that limit the effectiveness of medical response to hate crime.

4 Liz Coston: Many of the same groups who are impacted by hate crimes also have limited 

5 access to appropriate medical care. Many members of these groups are under 

6 insured, but more troublingly, these minority groups are also more likely to 

7 experience negative interactions with healthcare providers. These negative 

8 interactions can range from outright discrimination or insensitivity, to lack of 

9 knowledge about the unique healthcare needs of these groups. These barriers 

10 can be reduced through increasing comprehensive cultural competency training 

11 for healthcare providers, and while community organizations that serve hate 

12 crimes can also be important resources, the availability of these resources varies 

13 greatly. For example, the National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs, which 

14 has addressed anti-LGBT violence, has member organizations in 26 states and in 

15 the District of Columbia. But, this means that many states are lacking programs 

16 that explicitly address the needs of LGBT victims of hate crimes.

17 Likewise, the resources of these organizations are often stretched thin, leaving 

18 those in rural areas, for example, with decreased access to services that may be 

19 available in larger cities. Services also vary according to the type of hate crime 

20 victims’ experience, with specific services available for some groups, while other 

21 groups may have access to only more generalized victim services.

22 Ideally, comprehensive post victimization services that can distinguish between 

23 the specific needs of different groups, would be available to all victims. 

24 Importantly, cross sector collaborations between the police, health care 

25 professionals, and community organizations would also have the potential to 

26 offer the greatest number of resources to victims, allowing them to take 

27 advantages of the services that are most beneficial to their particular situations. 

28 While improving these responses is important, it is also critical to increase and 

29 improve prevention efforts in order to push back against the rising tide of 

30 violence we've seen in recent years. The same community organizations who 

31 are already working with victims also play an important role in prevention, 

32 focusing often on increasing tolerance and awareness in their communities.

33 Additionally, the prejudices that underlie hate crimes can be prevented, 

34 particularly through focused intervention, and through education for youth. As 

35 such, it is imperative that our policies and legislation addressing hate crimes, 

36 begin to include consideration of prevention measures and responses to victims, 

37 rather than focusing narrowly on criminal justice responses to offenders.

38 Thank you all. 

39 Committee Chair: Thank you. Mr. Ezickson.

APPENDIX B: TRANSCRIPT March 29, 2019 35 of 63
1 Doron Ezickson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon, again. My name is Doron Ezickson. 

2 I serve as regional director of the ADL's Washington DC office, where we serve 

3 the district, Maryland, Virginia and North Carolina. And I would like to thank you 

4 very much for the opportunity to participate in today's discussion.

5 For more than 60 years, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, and its state 

6 Advisory Committees, have done trailblazing work, elevating the issue with hate 

7 crime and bias motivated violence. In my presentation today, I'd like to briefly 

8 contextualize the problem that we face in Virginia, specifically, and then provide 

9 a few proposed policy recommendations for the Advisory Committee's 

10 consideration. 

11 So, let's frame the problem. All Virginia residents − all of us −have a stake in 

12 effective response to violent bigotry.

13 Hate crimes demand priority attention because of their unique impact. They are 

14 intended to intimidate, not only the individual victim of the crime, but also 

15 members of the victim’s community, leaving them, as has been noted, feeling 

16 fearful, isolated and vulnerable. Failure to properly address hate incidents often 

17 causes a single event to explode into widespread community tension. The 

18 damage is done by bigotry, therefore it cannot be measured solely in terms of 

19 physical injury or dollars and cents harm to institutions. By making members of 

20 targeted communities feel fearful, angry and suspicious of other groups, and of 

21 the power structure that is supposed to protect them, these incidents damage 

22 the fabric of our society and our democracy, and they for fragment 

23 communities.

24 Over the past few years, we have seen hate filled language, memes, 

25 stereotyping and scapegoating injected into the mainstream of our policy 

26 debates and translated into federal policies and other actions that marginalize 

27 communities already vulnerable to hate crimes, deterring individuals from 

28 reporting such crimes to local police. And, the data that has suffered, as a result 

29 which is troubling.

30 For an example, ADL's recent Audit of Anti-Semitic Incidents in the United States 

31 documented a 57% increase in the number of anti-Semitic incidents reported to 

32 us in 2017, compared to 2016. That increase is the largest one-year increase in 

33 the 40 years that we have conducted this audit. With respect to hate crimes, 

34 specifically in 2017, as has been noted, the FBI documented a 17% increase in 

35 hate crimes nationally, the third successive year of increase, and the 58% 

36 increase in Virginia. Unfortunately, even with those numbers, we know there is 

37 still a significant underreporting of hate crimes across the United States. On a 

38 national level, many law enforcement agencies fail to participate, and of those 

39 that did, only a small number, 13%, reported even a single hate crime to the FBI 

40 in 2017. That means that 87% of all participating police agencies affirmatively 

41 reported zero hate crimes to the FBI.

APPENDIX B: TRANSCRIPT March 29, 2019 36 of 63
1 Doron Ezickson: This underreporting of hate crime data is significant, not only because it 

2 undermines the accuracy of the data, but, also because it may deter members 

3 of the community from coming forward to report hate crimes. Indeed, victims 

4 are far more likely to report a hate crime if they believe that the police are 

5 ready and able to respond effectively, and take them seriously. In order to 

6 develop a comprehensive multidisciplinary approach to reduce a crime and hate 

7 motivated incidents, Virginia should consider amending its hate crime statutes, 

8 as has been noted, updating law enforcement policies, strengthening anti9 bullying guidance, promoting anti-bias education, and urging local officials to 

10 sign the Mayor's Compact to Combat Hate − launched by ADL and the U.S. 

11 Conference of Mayors − all of which are discussed in more detail in my written 

12 testimony.

13 This afternoon, however, I would like to highlight two of our recommendations. 

14 First and foremost, ADL would strongly urge Virginia to require a comprehensive 

15 training for law enforcement, with respect to identifying, responding to and 

16 reporting all bias motivated crimes. Unfortunately, such a requirement does not 

17 currently exist in the Commonwealth. Mandatory hate crime training for law 

18 enforcement, in addition to adequate funding and resources to support this 

19 training, is essential for several reasons.

20 First, law enforcement must be able to identify victims of hate crimes and 

21 respond appropriately, in a manner that is sensitive, not only to the victims, but 

22 also to the community at large. Proper identification is critical, not only to 

23 preserve and communicate, or maintain community trust, but also because 

24 victims themselves are not always aware of the existence of hate crime laws 

25 designed to protect them.

26 Proper response by law enforcement is equally important, in light of the unique 

27 impact that hate crimes have that I've mentioned. By definition, hate crimes 

28 involve the intentional selection of the victim because of their characteristics, 

29 something that the victim cannot change to prevent future crime. 

30 In addition to training, with respect to hate crime identification and response, 

31 law enforcement must understand why some of the most likely targets of hate 

32 violence are often the least likely to report these crimes. For example, many 

33 immigrant victims, who are already face cultural and language barriers and 

34 reporting fear, reprisals or deportation of incidents are reported. Additionally, 

35 many immigrants come from countries where residents would never call the 

36 police. LGBTQ victim's face hostility, discrimination, and possibly other 

37 pressures, may be reluctant to come forward to report. So training with respect 

38 to why victims failed to report, coupled with training on how to identify such 

39 crimes and how best to respond in light of these sensitivities, is critical. 

40 Comprehensive hate crime training, as well as allocation of adequate funding, 

41 should therefore be a top priority. 

APPENDIX B: TRANSCRIPT March 29, 2019 37 of 63
1 Doron Ezickson: In addition to the mandatory training, ADL would also like to recommend that 

2 Virginia convene a statewide hate crime task force, who ensure that hate crime 

3 laws are effectively enforced, that crimes are at accurately reported, that law 

4 enforcement and communities are sufficiently trained and that public 

5 awareness of hate crimes is maintained in the state. The task force should meet 

6 regularly with stakeholders and community-based organizations to propose, 

7 promote, cross agency collaboration to address hate crime prevention and 

8 response.

9 Finally, the task force should consider whether diversity awareness education 

10 would benefit persons convicted of hate crimes in Virginia. If so, a curriculum 

11 should be developed. Ultimately, hate crime statistics do not just speak as 

12 numbers, because behind each statistic is a victim injured or intimidated for no 

13 other reason than how they worship, who they love, or who they are. We would 

14 welcome the opportunity to continue to work with the Advisory Committee on 

15 this very important topic. Thank you.

16 Committee Chair: Thank you. Mr. Mokha. 

17 Harpreet Mokha: My name is Harpreet Mokha, and I'm the National Program Manager for 

18 Muslim, Arab, South Asian, Sikh and Hindu communities, at the US Department 

19 of Justice Community Relations Service (CRS). I've worked at CRS for nine years. 

20 In the last two years, I've focused my work with the massive communities to 

21 prevent and respond to hate crimes across the nation. CRS serves as America's 

22 peacemakers by facilitating knowledge, understanding and communication, in 

23 communities facing conflict, and developing communities’ abilities to

24 independently prevent and resolve conflicts. Under title 10 of the Civil Rights 

25 Act of 1964, and the Matthew Shepard Jamesburg Junior Act, Hate Crimes Act of 

26 2009, CRS responds to community conflicts arising from differences of race, 

27 color and national origin, and in the prevention and response to actual or 

28 perceived the hate crimes based on gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, 

29 religion or disability.

30 CRS does not have law enforcement or prosecutorial authority. Rather, CRS 

31 works with communities in conflict to help rebuild relationships, facilitate 

32 mutual understanding, and encourage the development of local solutions.

33 CRS staff works directly with state and local officials, community-based 

34 organizations, community and civil rights advocates, faith-based groups and law 

35 enforcement on a voluntary, no cost basis. CRS serves as a neutral third party, 

36 and its services are confidential. CRS programming focuses on four major areas 

37 that can be tools to assist law enforcement and communities, to reduce 

38 community tension based on recent hate crimes.

39 First is facilitated dialogue. CRS facilitates dialogues between community 

40 stakeholders in conflict, to open lines of communication between parties. 

APPENDIX B: TRANSCRIPT March 29, 2019 38 of 63
1 Second is mediation. CRS provides mediation services to help communities 

2 resolve conflicts and tensions through face-to-face negotiations between the 

3 stakeholders. 

4 Third is training. CRS training programs bring together representatives from 

5 state and local government agencies, faith-based organizations, law 

6 enforcement, advocacy groups and other groups to develop common 

7 understanding, and identify collaborative approaches for reducing community 

8 conflicts. 

9 Fourth is consultation. CRS offers consultation services to help communities 

10 respond more effectively to conflict.

11 The 2017 hate crimes statistics show that hate crimes are increasing across the 

12 country, and as my colleague has stated, including in Virginia. However, steps 

13 can be taken to prevent and respond to these crimes. CRS works to educate, 

14 engage, collaborate, and communicate with law enforcement, and 

15 communities, to better prevent and respond to hate crimes.

16 Awareness and understanding of cultural differences is key to effective police17 community relations. CRS provides three types of community awareness 

18 trainings to law enforcement, government officials and others on the customs, 

19 cultures and practices of various communities, in order to strengthen 

20 relationships between law enforcement and communities. These trainings 

21 include Engaging and Building Partnerships with Muslim Americans, Engaging 

22 and Developing Partnerships with Sikh Americans, and Law Enforcement and 

23 the Transgender Community Training. These interactive and informative 

24 trainings include topics such as cultural symbols and language, impacts of hate 

25 crimes, and best practices for engagement and problem solving. 

26 Since 2002, CRS has conducted over 600 of these Engaging and Building

27 Partnerships Trainings with Muslim and Sikh Americans across the country. Both 

28 community members and law enforcement have appreciated how the training 

29 has helped improve communication, and better understanding of each other.

30 Law enforcement can survey which communities live in their neighborhoods and 

31 make outreach plans to engage with those communities. CRS can assist law 

32 enforcement in planning the community engagement session, to inform the 

33 development of an engagement plan and highlight the benefits of creating 

34 partnerships between law enforcement, public officials, and community 

35 members.

36 

37 With collaboration and partnership between law enforcement and the

38 individuals and organizationsthat represent the community, communities can

39 be better served in addressing many of their unique needs and safety concerns. CRS 

40 can help with collaboration and partnership between law enforcement and 

41 individual organizations that represent the community. 

APPENDIX B: TRANSCRIPT March 29, 2019 39 of 63
1 

2 Harpreet Mokha: CRS brings together diverse community leaders, and stakeholders to educate 

3 communities on hate crimes, hate crimes prevention, and to find collaborative 

4 solutions for hate crimes prevention and response in the following three 

5 programs: facilitated dialogue, hate crimes forums and protecting places of 

6 worship.

7 

8 CRS facilitates meetings between community leaders, city officials, law 

9 enforcement and other key stakeholders to open lines of communication and

10 promote problem solving in cases of alleged bias/hate crimes. 

11 CRS facilitates a half day forum, called a hate crimes forum, which provides 

12 community members with information related to the Matthew Shepard and 

13 James Byrd Hate Crimes Prevention Act, as well as state and local hate crime 

14 laws. The program engages local law enforcement, district attorneys, federal 

15 law enforcement and community members in discussions and information 

16 sharing on methods to combat and prevent hate crimes.

17 CRS also facilitates a half-day forum on protecting places of worship. The forum 

18 provides faith-based leaders and congregations with information about religious 

19 hate crimes, local, state and federal law enforcement threat assessments and 

20 how to take steps to protect against hate crimes and other threats of violence. 

21 We've done nearly seven of those since 2018.

22 

23 Communication can lead to greater reporting and build trust between parties. 

24 On October 29, 2018, the Department of Justice launched a hate crimes 

25 website, www.justice.gov/hatecrimes. The website is a centralized portal for the 

26 Department’s hate crime resources for victims, law enforcement, researchers, 

27 civil rights groups, media, and other stakeholders. CRS worked with the Civil 

28 Rights Division, FBI and other DOJ components to create the informative 

29 website with information regarding federal hate crimes laws, hate crimes data, 

30 how to report hate crimes, victims support and free resources on how to 

31 prevent and respond to hate crimes. This tool provides communities easy access 

32 to key information and has already had more than 50,000 visitors.

33 CRS stands ready to assist law enforcement and the communities in Virginia as 

34 they continue working to prevent and respond to hate crimes and to prevent 

35 community tension. Thanks.

36 Committee Chair: Thank you. Mr. Johns. 

37 Brian Johns: Good afternoon. My name is Brian Johns. I'm the Executive Director of an 

38 organization called Virginia Organizing. I'm going to start by thanking you, all the 

39 members of the Virginia Advisory Committee to the United States Commission 

40 on Civil Rights. I greatly appreciate your work, especially this examination, into

41 hate crimes in Virginia. Thanks, also, to my much more educated and smart 

APPENDIX B: TRANSCRIPT March 29, 2019 40 of 63
1 co-panelists, both here and on the panel prior to this, and to the staff who 

2 helped pull together this hearing. I really look forward to what comes out of it.

3 Brian Johns: Virginia Organizing is a 24 year old, multi-issues, statewide, grassroots 

4 community organizing group that works with people to get a sense of their own 

5 power, and then to democratically and nonviolently build that power to change 

6 and improve their communities. We exist because in every part of Virginia, 

7 people have been traditionally and deliberately left out of the decision-making 

8 process − low income folks, people of Color, women, young people, LGBTQ 

9 people and others.

10 We believe the most effective way to build power is to organize multi-issue 

11 groups, and campaigns, locally and statewide, led by people directly affected by 

12 the issues in their communities. Our overall purpose is to create a statewide 

13 political force which has a diverse grassroots base, and deliberately includes 

14 these folks who have not been active before. We're always conscious of place 

15 and time, and bring in people new to social efforts, social change efforts, help 

16 them understand the broader context for their actions, and deal directly with 

17 the isms that confront them in their daily lives. Our organizing is directed 

18 towards making specific and tangible changes that also have a long-term 

19 impact. Any expertise that I have today, on dealing with hate crimes in Virginia, 

20 comes from our leaders and their experiences. We have organized 17 chapters 

21 in almost every corner of the Commonwealth, and whether they're in 

22 Pennington Gap, in far southwest Virginia, in Danville on the south side, or in 

23 Accomac, on the eastern shore and just about anywhere in between, our 

24 members and chapters had some common experiences dealing with hate and 

25 discrimination over the years.

26 In fact, one of the main reasons our organization was formed in the mid27 nineties, was to work with people to create ways to dismantle the racism, 

28 sexism, heterosexism, etc. that often leads to the harassment, discrimination 

29 that feed take crimes. Our organizers and leaders are talking to people every 

30 single day, to hear what issues they're facing and what they would like to see 

31 changed. It probably comes as no surprise, that in our work to engage people 

32 who've been left out of the process, we're almost constantly hearing from 

33 people about their horrible experiences. For example, we have worked with 

34 African American families, in southwest Virginia, who have dealt with nooses 

35 being hung on a student's high school locker, or even worse, a student who had 

36 a noose placed around his neck on the bus ride home from school.

37 We've heard from college students of color in that same region, who have been 

38 threatened and followed on campus, simply for suggesting the campus create 

39 an office of diversity and inclusion. We've listened to the LGBTQ high school 

40 students, in central Virginia, have played tapes, dating myself there, played 

41 tapes of terrible verbal harassment that they recorded on a tape recorder they 

42 hid in their backpack, while they walked down the halls of their school between 

43 class. We've worked with a mother and her son, to set up a meeting with the 

APPENDIX B: TRANSCRIPT March 29, 2019 41 of 63
1 south side police chief, after her son, one of our summer interns, was called the 

2 N word by a police officer, and told to leave the part of the town he was 

3 canvassing in. We've worked with transgender folks in Roanoke, as they've 

4 asked a health system how they are supposed to receive health care when they 

5 routinely feel unsafe in local physicians’ offices. 

6 We've organized forums in Hampton roads where we heard students of color, 

7 and students of disabilities, describe the verbal and physical harassment that 

8 they had to deal with on a daily basis. We've stood in solidarity with the 

9 Fredericksburg residents in the face of harassment, as they tried to get approval 

10 to build a mosque in the area, and we have done thousands of interviews in 

11 predominantly Latino communities, in the Shenandoah Valley, many of whom 

12 described the harassment and abuse they have dealt with, because of their 

13 appearance or their accents.

14 These are just a few of the incidents of discrimination, harassment and the hate 

15 crimes that we have heard people describe. However, my main purpose here 

16 today is not to relay the details of each of these incidents. You've done the 

17 research, and heard, and read testimony on similar instances in crimes. You've 

18 also heard from my co-panelists on data and statistics that will inform your 

19 report and recommendations.

20 I believe all of these pieces are essential, as we figure out how to better address 

21 hate crimes in the Commonwealth. 

22 My main purpose here is to share how we have organized to improve these 

23 situations through our chapters, and worked to help communities respond to, 

24 and hopefully prevent, hate crimes. In each of the examples above, our 

25 members were involved in organizing to respond to that incident. One example 

26 is our long-term work on racial profiling. In 2002, we were doing hundreds of 

27 one to ones and heard frequently from people of color, who had been stopped, 

28 detained, frisked or generally profiled. Around that time, North Carolina began 

29 collecting data on traffic stops by their state police and analyzing it, and as a 

30 result we decided to organize a campaign, with the goal of getting the General 

31 Assembly to pass legislation to require data collection on traffic stops.

32 Even though are directly affected members built a sound strategy, it was 

33 apparent that at the time we didn't have the power we needed to pass a bill. So, 

34 we redoubled our efforts. Over the course of the next several years, we worked 

35 on the issue locally. We built new chapters, and several of them were focused 

36 on profiling in one way or another. While we didn't have the power to move the 

37 issue legislatively or administratively on the state level, we were building 

38 relationships and organizing directly affected people all over the 

39 Commonwealth, which leads us to today.

40 In most of our chapters, people of color, LGBTQ folks and others have been 

41 working to build relationships with their local law enforcement. We've had 

APPENDIX B: TRANSCRIPT March 29, 2019 42 of 63
1 several meetings with local chiefs and sheriffs, who are committing to things like 

2 data collection in their local offices, and body cameras on their officers, in order 

3 to better serve communities of color in their local jurisdictions. We've also 

4 expanded these campaigns to address the school-to-prison pipeline, which 

5 places much higher numbers of students of color, LGBTQ students, students 

6 with disabilities into suspensions or into the criminal justice system.

7 In some parts of the state, our chapters are working jointly with law 

8 enforcement and the school systems, to develop memorandums of 

9 understanding for the agencies, and including things like funding, restorative 

10 justice, and building clear policies for responding to incidents of discrimination 

11 and hate crimes.

12 So, our experience tells us that we have to respond to prevent hate crimes 

13 when we build relationships between affected communities and local decision 

14 makers. These relationships must result in policies that are created by the 

15 directly affected individuals in those communities, who have a real seat at the 

16 table. When that happens, we've seen those communities be much more willing 

17 to report hate crimes, and those agencies be much more effective in their 

18 response to and prevention up these crimes.

19 As a result, we recommend that you call on the state to better fund community 

20 policing, and restorative justice practices among others. We also hope your 

21 report contains examples of hate crime response and prevention work that has 

22 been effective.

23 Finally, we hope that you focus on the voices of people who've experienced 

24 these crimes, and people that are routinely at risk of the possible crime and 

25 creating local and statewide solutions. Thank you again for your time.

26 Committee Chair: Thank you. Thank you to all of our panelists. We'll now turn to questions from 

27 the members, and we'll use the same rules as with the first panel. We'll start 

28 with the members on the dais. You've got five minutes − time for one question 

29 plus one follow up − and after we do the members on the dais, we'll go to those 

30 on the phone. The Vice Chair, Terrie Griffin, and I will go last.

31 Lorraine Waddill: I have a question for anyone on the panel, probably first Professor Coston. Well, 

32 bullying is not a hate crime. Are you concerned about bullying leading to hate 

33 crimes, and are your organizations doing anything to try to counter some of the 

34 bullying that's going on even in colleges?

35 Liz Coston: So even though bullying isn't typically considered a hate crime, normally it's 

36 something that's handled within schools. There are many incidents of bullying 

37 that could rise to the level of hate crime. So, for example, an assault committed 

38 by someone who is a student is still an assault. Normally these are handled 

39 internally, rather than being handled through the legal system, though that 

40 would be a potential response as well. 

APPENDIX B: TRANSCRIPT March 29, 2019 43 of 63
1 There are a number of educational programs that are targeting bullying, 

2 particularly based around issues of gender identity and sexual orientation. We 

3 do know that some of the most effective responses to reducing prejudice, are to 

4 intervene early on. And, so, I think it's very important to include comprehensive 

5 education about multicultural awareness. So, knowing about groups that are 

6 different than our own in reducing prejudice, reducing bias and reducing 

7 bullying. Thank you.

8 Doron Ezickson: I think it's an excellent question. We at ADL think of hate as a pyramid structure. 

9 At the base of the pyramid are bullying, and slurs, and ethnic jokes, which can 

10 escalate, and we have a documented over time, will escalate acts of bias, which 

11 can then convert to a more systematic discrimination, and ultimately acts of 

12 violence and in rare instances and very tragic incidences, a genocide. That is the 

13 history of humanity unfortunately.

14 And, so, a very critical part of our work is to intervene in schools. We have also 

15 found that the best methodology for teaching children the importance of 

16 tolerance, is to have children lead that education effort, that this is not as 

17 effective when it's dictated or taught.

18 And so for example, one of the programs which we have recently expanded in 

19 the state of Virginia, all the middle schools for example, and Enrico County 

20 around Richmond, now participate in what we call our No Place for Hate 

21 Program, which is a peer-to-peer program to change the culture in schools 

22 where each child will both commit not to act in any way that is bullying of 

23 another, on the basis of who they are, and also to be an ally, to be an upstander, 

24 to stand by people who conduct themselves that way. And we think that is a 

25 critical part of the work. Just to give a statistical analysis, I mentioned that 57% 

26 increase in anti-Semitic, as an example, incidents that we documented in 2017, 

27 most disturbingly, we saw a 93% increase in those incidents in K through 12 

28 schools, and an almost a hundred percent increase on campuses. And it is not 

29 just people picking things up on the Internet. We know that there are 

30 affirmative groups out there, pedaling propaganda, encouraging hate, 

31 particularly on campuses, and, so, we have to counter it in a systematic way.

32 Harpreet Mokha: CRS has a program called SPIRIT, which stands for Student Problem 

33 Identification Resolution of Issues Together − where we go into schools and we 

34 sit down with students, faculty and administration and identify problems and 

35 solutions together. We've used that program to address the bullying in the past 

36 and continue to do in the future.

37 The U.S. Department of Education has done a lot of work, I mean, that's outside 

38 of my topic but they have a website: www.stopbullying.gov. And, we work with 

39 them, in a coalition, to develop materials, to provide cultural competency 

40 information to schools, to help them with addressing bullying issues.

APPENDIX B: TRANSCRIPT March 29, 2019 44 of 63
1 We continue to do that as of now and work with a whole conglomerate of 

2 governing components that's lead by the Department of Education in addressing 

3 that issue. That program, that SPIRIT Program has been very successful and 

4 we've done that since the 1980s, in addressing bullying issues.

5 Brian Johns: Just quickly, I would add that we've done a lot of anti-bullying work with local 

6 school systems and what has struck our members and me routinely, is that 

7 those professionals are coming to us because they don't know where to go, to 

8 get the information.

9 Learning about programs like this, is huge in some way, to continue to get it on 

10 the radar screen of a system, particularly under-performing systems, where 

11 there's about 15 - 20 other things on their list to get through every day, has 

12 been striking to us.

13 Committee Chair: Thank you.

14 Edmund Cooke: A lot of the testimony that I think is included in this panel and the previous 

15 panel, takes me back to this concept of institutional barriers, to achieving what 

16 we're trying to achieve. I'd just like to ask all the panelists, if you would please 

17 comment on, what are the institutional and other barriers to identifying 

18 unlawful behavior as hate crimes? 

19 What are the most significant and practical ones, if there is this concept of 

20 constructive dialogue out of a more constructing dialogue? I've been told that 

21 I'm not being heard. Can anybody comment on that? I was struck by Dr.

22 Coston's discussion and her written annual testimony of what prevention looks 

23 like. We're trying to get at, what are the institutional areas too.

24 Liz Coston: I think that one of the biggest barriers we have is, lack of awareness about the 

25 experiences of the groups that experience hate crimes. I would say that, 

26 generally, police, healthcare providers, are not knowledgeable about these 

27 issues. We get misclassifications of hate crimes for this reason.

28 We get victims of hate crimes feeling that they've been persecuted when they 

29 go to seek help − experiencing re-victimization by either healthcare providers or 

30 police officers. I think that one of the biggest barriers is lack of knowledge of 

31 these institutions that are actually poised to help victims.

32 There is a huge wealth of knowledge in the community organizations, that 

33 already work with victims. For example, providers that serve the LGBT 

34 community, they know this is a problem, they know this is an issue and they 

35 know how to be sensitive to LGBT victims who experience violence. But, that 

36 also requires the LGBT community to have knowledge of those providers, to 

37 know to go to them.

APPENDIX B: TRANSCRIPT March 29, 2019 45 of 63
1 What we're really seeing is, a lack of coordination amongst these various 

2 groups. I think that knowledge is one barrier. I think that lack of coordination is 

3 another barrier. Some of this also is due to things like lack of funding. It's very 

4 difficult to say that we're going to implement trainings for police officers, and 

5 that we're going to implement trainings for healthcare providers.

6 Many times, we think of implementing these things simply as, people need to 

7 have multi-cultural training. But, the way that we need to respond to the African

8 American community, differs from the way we need to respond to the Hispanic 

9 community, differs from the way that we need to respond to lesbian, gay, 

10 bisexual and transgender communities.

11 When we really lump all of these things together into multi-cultural awareness 

12 or multi-cultural competency, we're doing it a disservice and I think that people 

13 really aren't getting enough of the training, to be able to appropriately address 

14 these issues.

15 Doron Ezickson: I would just suggest that there's an enormous amount of very creative work 

16 being done on the ground, in all of the areas. The institutional question is, how 

17 do you disseminate that information? Most hate, if not all hate, actually is local. 

18 It hits people where they live, where they work, where they drive, where they 

19 shop.

20 What we want to do is, take the best practices and make them available to as 

21 many institutions that are doing the work on the ground and that is a convening 

22 and a sharing of information, that doesn't exist on a coordinated basis in 

23 Virginia and quite frankly, in most states.

24 Harpreet Mokha: I do think it is a lack of awareness on both community and law enforcement. I 

25 think with communities it is about just not knowing or understanding the laws, 

26 the federal, the state, the local laws or understanding what a difference the 

27 nuance between a hate incident versus a hate crime. On the other hand with 

28 law enforcement, understanding how to better engage with communities after 

29 a hate incident or crime has occurred is important. 

30 I think the second issue is a distrust of law enforcement by a variety of different 

31 communities. With many of the communities that I have been working with, 

32 they have an innate distrust from the countries that they've immigrated from 

33 and that distrust just continues on here because of a number of reasons.

34 Third, just not knowing about the resources that local government agencies can 

35 offer them or even going about, "How do I report this or what would be the 

36 process? I just want to support my family and do what I need to do and I'm 

37 going to put my head down and do that and I'm just going to avoid this."

38 We want to encourage communities to be proactive and engage. I think by 

39 conducting hate crime forums with law enforcement and communities can 

APPENDIX B: TRANSCRIPT March 29, 2019 46 of 63
1 serve as a step to promoting better engagement. The Hate Crime Forum can 

2 serve as a one-stop-shop in providing education on hate crime laws, available 

3 resources, tools and programs and community agencies on how to report, 

4 prevent and respond to hate crimes.

5 Brian Johns: Yeah. I mean, I completely echo all three of these, right. I think that, one, it was 

6 informed to us in Stafford County, we worked to help create a memorandum of 

7 understanding between the chair's office and the school system, on what school 

8 resource officers were allowed to do in the school.

9 Part of that was a huge training component. We stumbled upon the fact that 

10 there was no model MOU and so, we met with the Department of Education, 

11 who then got it out to every school district. We could do some of the back sales 

12 of getting local chapters to go to local districts and say, "Did you know there's 

13 now a model to use?"

14 Things like that feel very practical and speak to building trust because 

15 community members are a part of that discussion along the way.

16 Claire Gastañaga: Just a question for any and all of the panelists. All of you referred a little bit to

17 anti-bullying and the work that that might be important to, in terms of the first 

18 steps of early intervention and prevention. Have any of you reviewed the 

19 Virginia Anti-Bullying statute that's compelled for development of a model 

20 policy by the Virginia Department of Education?

21 Has anybody looked at the model policy the Virginia Department of Education 

22 has adopted and sent out to school divisions or done any looking at whether 

23 that's been implemented at the local school division level? 

24 Doron Ezickson: Yes, we're aware of the model policy. I think the comment there would be that, 

25 the Commonwealth does not have a model curriculum for the training under 

26 that policy and that is our strong recommendation, that that be developed and 

27 published, and that annual training be provided for educators and for student 

28 leaders as well.

29 Claire Gastañaga: Is there a curriculum that you would recommend?

30 Doron Ezickson: Other states do have a curriculum and there are a number of our private 

31 organizations that have as well. Sitting here today, I wouldn't want to 

32 recommend one or the other but those resources do exist. 

33 Claire Gastañaga: The second overarching question is, the process of hate, whether it's White 

34 supremacist hate or other kinds of hate, is the same psychologically, it seems to

35 me, across the board, regardless. I mean, you talked about the pyramid and that 

36 there's bullying at its base, followed by alienation and othering and that there's 

37 a really kind of recognized process of hate.

APPENDIX B: TRANSCRIPT March 29, 2019 47 of 63
1 The other thing that I understand is that, you go to the Internet, there are 

2 thousands and thousands of mechanisms that people are using to take 

3 advantage of that process on the hate side but not much going on the tolerance

4 and education side.

5 When you think about that pyramid, what can we do as a community, really, to 

6 address that underlying sort of impetus that people fall victim to, if you will or 

7 buy into, that results in their becoming part of these hate groups across the 

8 spectrum?

9 Liz Coston: Liz Coston. What I will say is that, there are actually a number of different 

10 resources out there for understanding, for teaching tolerance, that are widely 

11 available on the Internet. I think that the difference is that, people latch onto 

12 the hate speech. The people who are going out and looking for tolerance 

13 materials, are not the same ones who are latching onto the hate speech and so, 

14 the dynamics are very different.

15 I think that one of the things that has been important and Doron mentioned this 

16 in terms of anti-bullying and things like that is, things like bystander 

17 intervention. People being willing to speak up in situations of injustice or 

18 intolerance. I think that that is something that we unfortunately, see too little 

19 of.

20 Those have been proven effective models, when people are willing to engage in 

21 them.

22 Claire Gastañaga: A final question for Mr. Mokha. Can you give me an example of concrete 

23 outcomes from the forums that you conduct, like the half day forum that you 

24 conducted in Sterling, VA. What concrete outcomes can you point to, from 

25 those kinds of programs? 

26 Harpreet Mokha: Thank you for the question. A concrete outcome would be, first, a better 

27 engagement with law enforcement. I think we had over 100 people there and it 

28 wasn't at their main mosque, it was at the one in Sterling. We had a lot of 

29 people come to us afterwards and say that, "We did not know that the state and 

30 local county officials were also here. Is that going to help us with maybe doing 

31 an assessment, outright assessment of our place of worship?”

32 So, the first one was just to get to know who the players were out there. The 

33 government players that could help them out. 

34 Two, is how to report a hate crime.

35 Then three, getting to know best practices about getting to know your precinct, 

36 your neighborhood liaison and having a back and forth communication and not 

37 only inviting law enforcement to religious events and festivities and what have 

APPENDIX B: TRANSCRIPT March 29, 2019 48 of 63
1 you but to have an ongoing dialogue and not to wait until times of crisis to 

2 engage.

3 I think the key thing here is and my mentor used to say this all the time is, "The 

4 last time you want to hand out cards, is during a time of crisis. You want to get 

5 to know people beforehand," and I think that was the greatest takeaway that 

6 we had at that forum, is that people were getting to know each other, before 

7 something arises. 

8 Then thereafter, people had told me, "Oh yeah, I met that person there and he 

9 helped me out on another issue." That was one of the many takeaways.

10 Committee Chair: Thank you.

11 Toa Do: Thank you Mr. Chairman and thank you to all the people on the panels. Before 

12 the hearing, I asked one big question that I think I want to learn. Also, my 

13 concern is about the data collection and the analysis of data. That would seem 

14 like something that would have to guide us through all this discussion today.

15 However, after listening to all of the testimonies and from the both panels, I 

16 think I have more questions than answers. I know that we have a long way to 

17 go in Virginia. Being an immigrant, first generation immigrant, I have to tell you 

18 that I don't think I'm personally, a victim of hate crime but I'm definitely a victim 

19 of hate speech and bullying, many, many, many times.

20 I was a guest speaker in Fairfax County a few years ago and talking about 

21 diversity, in Fairfax County. And one of the gentleman in the audience told me 

22 that, if I didn't like it here, why didn't I go home? I want to make clear, I'm very 

23 fortunate that being here and being on this Advisory Committee. I appreciate 

24 and am grateful to everything.

25 I'm a beneficiary of the 1980 President Carter Refugee Act, and I could bring my 

26 family here after eight years. Also, at work, if people did not like me, they could 

27 say that, "Hey Toa 02:32:21, I don't understand your English." I also served on 

28 the State Commission to study the impact of English as a Second Language (ESL 

29 Commission) on ESL students in school.

30 I even got some delegates and a senator in the Commission, told me also that 

31 they didn't understand my English. I said, "Well, I'm the only one serving on the 

32 ESL Commission, who speaks English with an accent.” Anyway, from what I 

33 heard, so far, from all the presenters, I know that we have a long, long way to 

34 go, including how we collect and analyze statistics. I love all the 

35 recommendations from ADL and I think it's great.

36 But I don't really have any specific question. I just wanted to have a general 

37 statement, and I want to join the other members who really thank Susan Bro. 

38 And being a father and also a grandfather, I think I want to borrow your last 

APPENDIX B: TRANSCRIPT March 29, 2019 49 of 63
1 statement, that no-one wants to have to go through something that you had to 

2 go through.

3 I know that we have a long way to go. And then, I think we have to stand 

4 together, you know. At least not to solve this problem but at least to see the 

5 numbers not going up, like we’re seeing in the last couple of years. We need to 

6 see the numbers coming down. Thank you.

7 Committee Chair: Thank you. Before we go to the members on the phone, we're going to switch 

8 up the protocol a little bit. I'm going to recognize the Vice-Chair, Terrie Griffin, 

9 for a question.

10 Terrie Griffin: Thank you. I sort of feel like Toa. The more I hear, the more questions I have. I 

11 want to make a statement and then I want to pose a question because I'm tired. 

12 I hear you both talking about multi-cultural awareness, cultural competency but 

13 then, if you do multi-cultural awareness, you're doing a disservice. You have to 

14 have competency about a culture, before you can have an intervention. 

15 I keep hearing talk about there are curricula out there. But, if you get a 

16 curriculum from Kansas, it's not going to fit in Virginia. The lack of resources, it 

17 does not take resources to sit across the table and talk to someone.

18 It just doesn't and if we don't start looking outside of the box and engaging in 

19 conversations, building relationships first, like you say, "Ah, that person was 

20 that previous forum. I recognize that person." I'm not going to trust you, if I 

21 don't feel like we couldn't even talk together. 

22 When you see me, I'm more than an African-American woman; there’s more to 

23 who I am. But I'll be willing to engage in understanding the consciousness of 

24 people, who have been oppressed, who are not invited to the table. If I sound a 

25 little bit upset, I am because we're talking to responses to and prevention of 

26 hate but we've got to begin to engage in dialogue, so that we can understand 

27 each other.

28 My question to each of you is, are you willing to look outside the box? Don't put 

29 just a band aid on something because it sounds good or it's politically correct. 

30 Are we willing to take risks? Are we willing to sit down and write our own 

31 curriculum and be creative in addressing the problems that are in our 

32 community, rather than importing something that doesn't have anything to do 

33 with who we are?

34 What are you going to do? That is my question to each of you.

35 Liz Coston: To be clear, I do think that multi-cultural awareness think that multi-cultural 

36 awareness is very important. I think that the problem is that we label something 

37 multi-cultural awareness, we do a one- or two-hour training and expect that we 

APPENDIX B: TRANSCRIPT March 29, 2019 50 of 63
1 are going to have knowledge about all of the various groups that fall under 

2 multi-culturalism, right.

3 That somehow in two hours, we would understand all of those differences. I 

4 don't think that's the case. I think that we absolutely need to have those 

5 conversations across lines of difference. Across communities of difference, 

6 between African American communities and the LGBT community, between 

7 religious communities and the LGBT community.

8 I think that everyone has an investment in building a better future for all of us 

9 and I do think that it's important to have those difficult conversations. I also 

10 think that you're absolutely correct, what works in one place, you can't just 

11 import it and expect it's going to work somewhere else.

12 There are different strengths in different communities that we can build on. For 

13 example, in understanding the experience of LGBT people in rural areas, right? 

14 We often think that rural areas are unsafe and unfriendly for LGBT people but 

15 there are many rural LGBT people who say, "Actually, the ties that I have to the 

16 people in the community, make me feel safer, not less safe."

17 I do think that we have to be able to sit down, have conversations across lines of 

18 difference and figure out responses that are going to work in particular places. I 

19 will be honest, funding is an issue because a lot of people won't come to that 

20 table, unless there are funds to develop the curriculum. I think that this is one of 

21 the barriers.

22 If you can put together a task force, of people who are willing to serve on it and 

23 develop those materials and do it at no cost, I think that's fantastic. I have 

24 experienced challenges in working with agencies who say, "Even if you have the 

25 curriculum for us to implement it, it's going to take hours for our people to sit in 

26 those trainings, so where is the funding for that?"

27 I think that this is a realistic barrier that many agencies face. I know that there 

28 are community organizations who are often willing to go in and do those 

29 trainings at no cost but the organizations have to be able to and willing to 

30 commit their people to those trainings as well. Thank you.

31 Doron Ezickson: Thank you for your honesty, your passion, your commitment, your challenges. I 

32 think that question should apply to every American. In other words, what we 

33 confront here and my organization has been fighting this fight for 106 years, not 

34 to be depressing but there's something about humanity, there is something 

35 about the nature of the way we interact and to put it in a more positive context.

36 Look, this country is an ongoing experiment. It is something that has not been 

37 accomplished in other places before. There are issues that we have not 

38 confronted, our past with regard to slavery. We still have not confronted as a 

APPENDIX B: TRANSCRIPT March 29, 2019 51 of 63
1 society, the treatment of the Native American population has not been 

2 confronted adequately and yet, we find new ways every day to hate each other.

3 This has to start at the top, in terms of leadership but it also has to be at every 

4 table, in every home, whether it is a conversation about are we as Americans? 

5 What country do we want to be citizens of? And to take that challenge. As an 

6 organization, we try to provide the vehicles for that conversation.

7 We produce table talks, how can a parent talk about what happened in New 

8 Zealand or can talk about Charlottesville, can talk about a Swastika showing up 

9 in their school. We need to empower people with knowledge and a 

10 commitment and this has to come from people.

11 No bureaucracy, no institution is going to impose the kind of tolerance and 

12 ongoing change of our institution that you are talking about and that really, our 

13 democracy compels.

14 Harpreet Mokha: The Community Relations Service has been doing this work for the last 50 years. 

15 We are termed the American peacemakers and we've been working hard from 

16 the 1960s ‘til now, to work on race relations and since 9/11 and onwards, to 

17 dealing with different programs.

18 With our new programs of hate crimes forums, where we do bring communities 

19 together to have those tough conversations and to find out about resources. 

20 Whether it be our protecting places of worship forum, where we talk about the 

21 unfortunate incident that happened in New Zealand or the shootings in South 

22 Carolina or the shooting at a Sikh temple in Wisconsin, 2012.

23 I mean, we had those tough conversations but we turned that conversation into, 

24 yes, we need to agree. We need to address trauma but what can we do to 

25 prevent those acts taking place in the future or helping others grieve. I think we 

26 are working on that and our programs are free, at no cost. We are again, the 

27 lack of resources and issues are out there. 

28 But, I think, I taken up your challenge and I'm working, to the best of my ability, 

29 to try to serve as communities as I can. Even though I'm mandated with a 

30 massive community, I think, we, at a Community Relations Service, have worked 

31 hard for the last 50 years to address and have those tough conversations. I think 

32 with everyone's partnership here and the Committee’s, I think we can do more.

33 I do think we're scratching the surface. I have a positive outlook and though you 

34 have more questions, we are far beyond what we used to be. I understand you 

35 may have questions about data collection but there are people we can talk to 

36 about data collection. More people are reporting, that's what we want to have. 

37 Let's always, you know, don't look at the glass half-full or half-empty but look at 

38 how much progress we can make. I think that despite the challenges we have, 

APPENDIX B: TRANSCRIPT March 29, 2019 52 of 63
1 we are going to have this and we will continue to have this. Like my colleague 

2 has said, this is a great country and we have the freedom to sit down and have 

3 these discussions.

4 I'm proud my family had to come to this country, where I can practice my faith 

5 freely but also, to help others in their practice of their freedom as well. Back to 

6 the topic, I do think that we are moving far beyond where we were from and I 

7 do think that we are addressing new challenges. 

8 But, I think there are a lot of groups and experts out there that are now studying 

9 this matter − whether it be ADL or the Southern Poverty Law Center − and 

10 trends. I think by looking at a whole conglomerate of these programs, we are 

11 now able to pick and choose what we want to do. I think that's the beauty, is 

12 that you don't only have one curriculum but you have several to choose from. I 

13 would look at it that way. Thank you.

14 Brian Johns: You know, I absolutely appreciate your questions and your sentiment and it's 

15 something we think about on a daily basis in our organization and we are just 

16 one approach but we have, in the late '90s, we built a curriculum around 

17 dismantling racism and we started with racism because at that time, our 

18 members were mainly from south-west or the eastern shore, they were facing 

19 racism every single day.

20 We lead with the fact that we're in the home of “massive resistance” and we're 

21 in a state that has some very hateful public entities that are out there actively 

22 working to sow that. Ours is not the only approach but we like to say we do 

23 things the hard way.

24 We also like to say, we try to be strategic, more so than busy. We will do 

25 workshops. We did more last year, than we've ever done and they're free, for 

26 the most part. We certainly won't turn down a donation but our thought is that, 

27 it's got to be a lot more than a workshop and I think that's what we've each 

28 expressed.

29 When we are doing that work best, it's where it's in part of a chapter where, 

30 even if you get someone to commit three days, to think about dismantling 

31 racism and how to do that institutionally. We have our best success, when we 

32 know that we're going to see most of those folks again in three weeks or two 

33 weeks or whenever the next chapter meeting is.

34 And that, we now have a common language for how to take this issue on. We 

35 will continue to do that and I really appreciate that.

36 Terrie Griffin: I appreciate that. Let me just say this, the glass is half-full and when we begin 

37 talking about diversity, inclusivity and equity, it's a long conversation and it's not 

38 going to happen overnight.

APPENDIX B: TRANSCRIPT March 29, 2019 53 of 63
1 Committee Chair: Thank you. I'm going to turn to questions from our members who are on the 

2 phone. If you don't have a question, please just get on the line and indicate that 

3 and move to the next person. Let's start with Mr. Bracknell [no response]. 

4 Moving onto Mr. Cameron.

5 Bruce Cameron: My question is a sharp inversion, I would say of the question I asked the last 

6 panel, several of the panelists have said that hate crimes are on the increase. In 

7 fact, radically on the increase but the Virginia police statistics show just the 

8 opposite.

9 Now when I asked that question last time, the experts said to me, well, the 

10 statistics are all over the place and because I had suggested specific years, there 

11 were explanations as to certain years. During the break, I went back and looked 

12 at every year and between 2000 and 2009, 2000, 2008, hate crimes reportedly 

13 officially in Virginia, were between 300 and 400. In fact, one year, they peaked 

14 over 400 by just a little bit.

15 Now starting in 2010, the hate crimes have all been between 100 and 200. 2017, 

16 slightly increased, 200. Those statistics are consistent and what they're 

17 consistently showing, is that hate crimes are down by at least 50%, if not more.

18 Now, my question is, how do you explain that? I know that a number of you are 

19 connected with organizations that raise money, as a result of raising this issue 

20 but how do you explain, these statistics directly contradict with what you're 

21 suggesting to us? I might add, that my concern about this is increased by the 

22 fact that, as we've seen in the news recently, very famous person was making 

23 up a hate crime.

24 Apparently hate crimes were so scarce, he had to manufacture his own. I'm very 

25 troubled about this idea of people manufacturing hate crimes, suggesting that 

26 the statistics are opposite than what they are. If it's true that they're increasing, 

27 then I'd like to know why the statistics, the official statistics are just the 

28 opposite?

29 Liz Coston: You're referencing some earlier years of data but in 2016, for example, Virginia 

30 was down to 122 hate crimes being reported. In 2017, we were back up to 100 

31 again. If we look at the prior years of data, what we do see is, since about 2014, 

32 we did see a decrease until 2014 but then we see hate crimes creeping back up, 

33 increasing again from 2014 on.

34 So, if we look at the statistics and data that we do have on hate crimes, we 

35 know that even those 200 reported, are a gross underestimation of the actual 

36 number of hate crime incidents that occur every single year. When we compare 

37 number one, half of all hate crimes aren't reported to the police. Even more of 

38 these are not reported, depending on the particular social group.

APPENDIX B: TRANSCRIPT March 29, 2019 54 of 63
1 For example, the National Coalition of Anti-Violence Program's (website:

2 https://avp.org/ncavp/) reported that in almost 20% of all hate crimes, where 

3 the victim was lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender, that when the person went 

4 to file the report with the police, that the police actually turned them away. 

5 These are national statistics, not specific to Virginia.

6 Likewise, you mentioned the data collection. I do want to particularly point out, 

7 for example, anti-transgender hate crimes. In 2017, the Uniform Crime Reports 

8 that there are zero anti-transgender murders that occur in the United States. 

9 However, we know from media reporting that, in fact, there were 29 murders of 

10 transgender people in the United States in that year. Specifically, many of them 

11 transgender women of color. We also see that these intersections are 

12 important. We can't think only about someone's gender identity, but that 

13 people are also victimized based on their race and gender identity 

14 simultaneously.

15 When we talk about this data, the important thing to note is that these are 

16 under representations of the total amount of crime. Some of these are crimes 

17 that are only verifiable by police. Police only report them because they think 

18 that there's enough evidence to prove that it was a hate crime. This does not 

19 negate people's actual experiences of victimization. Just because someone was 

20 called a racist, or homophobic, or trans-phobic, or religious slur during the 

21 attack that doesn't necessarily mean that the police are classifying it as a hate 

22 crime. 

23 I do think that it's important to frame this in terms of, yes, in prior years there 

24 may have been higher numbers reported, but there was a decrease over time 

25 and now we're seeing those numbers rising again. Thank you.

26 Committee Chair: Somebody else on the panel like to address that question?

27 Doron Ezickson: Just to validate again, that after seeing an apparent decline in Virginia for some 

28 number of years, we're now seeing an increase, yet again. And, if you think 

29 about the pyramid, the crimes reported, not only are they under reported, but 

30 they represent a very small number of the overall amount of intimidation, 

31 harassment, online, in person, that is going on in our society. If law enforcement 

32 is able to prevent more hate crimes, or intervention educationally is allowed, 

33 and it enabled us to perhaps stop the increase at this time, that would be 

34 wonderful, but it still leaves hundreds of victims in the Commonwealth and 

35 thousands across the country who are being targeted with crimes for no other 

36 reason than their identity. That is Un-American, and that is not acceptable.

37 Committee Chair: Thank you. Moving on to Ms. Combs. 

38 Bruce Cameron: Can I have a follow-up?

39 Committee Chair: We're over your time, Bruce. If we have time at the end, we'll circle back.

APPENDIX B: TRANSCRIPT March 29, 2019 55 of 63
1 Bruce Cameron: All right.

2 Committee Chair: Sara Combs.

3 Sara Combs: I have no questions, thank you.

4 Committee Chair: Thank you. Moving on to Ms. Vellie Dietrich-Hall [no response]. 

5 Moving on to Ryung Suh. 

6 Ryung Shuh: I have no questions.

7 Committee Chair: Thank you. Given that we have some extra time Bruce. You can have the follow8 up.

9 Bruce Cameron: Well, thank you. The response was that I wasn't looking at all the years, but I am 

10 looking at all the years between 2000 and 2017. And while I agree that there 

11 should be zero hate crimes, the question is what the trend is. For example, in 

12 2010 the hate crimes in Virginia were 184, 2017 the year of this huge increase is 

13 2002. It's very close, the numbers here. If in fact the hate crime reporting is 

14 underrepresented, which I don't debate, the point that I'm making is it would be 

15 under represented in every year. Thus, that does not negate what the statistics 

16 show, which is that the number of hate crimes are rapidly dropping in the 

17 Commonwealth and are half of what they used to be. I think that is something 

18 that the panelists need to address.

19 If you just want to say, as I believe, "That the number of hate crimes are 

20 dropping rapidly". Well, we can say, "That's great. How do we get rid of the rest 

21 of the hate crimes?" And, I'm with you, but to suggest that they're going up, I 

22 think, unless there's some reasonable explanation, that the statistics show just 

23 the opposite. And, I'm hoping that people who are expert in this can show me, 

24 in some logical way, why I'm not reading these statistics correctly.

25 Committee Chair: The panels have already spoken to this. So, I'm actually going to recognize Claire

26 Gastañaga, who has a comment on this point.

27 Claire Gastañaga: Mr. Cameron, one of the things that I find personally confusing as I read the 

28 State Police Report, I'm thinking the state police report should report in a way 

29 that concords with the state statute which says, "The crime and incident", or 

30 some other thing in their three different categories of experiences, if you will, 

31 that are supposed to be reported. Yet, in the most recent 2017 state police 

32 report on crimes in Virginia, it says, "Hate crimes are not separate, distinct 

33 offenses but rather reported crimes motivated by the offender's bias". If this 

34 year it's only about reported crimes but in another year they took more 

35 seriously what the actual statute says, which is supposed to be more 

36 comprehensive than criminal acts. Supposed to be criminal acts, illegal acts, or 

37 other incidents that involve bias.

APPENDIX B: TRANSCRIPT March 29, 2019 56 of 63
1 Over the years you may have had different people making decisions about what 

2 to report that were different based on the instructions from the 

3 Superintendent. That's why I made a comment earlier that I think one of the 

4 most important things that could be done is to sit down with the 

5 Superintendent and clarify how this current reporting law is administered, and 

6 to ensure that the instructions going out to law enforcement are very clear so 

7 that we do get a comprehensive picture. I think over time, in each and every 

8 year, you could have different people making different decisions about what to 

9 report. That could explain part of the reason why the data aren't comparable 

10 over these years.

11 Committee Chair: Thank you. This will be the last question from the Committee. During Panel 1, I 

12 asked a question in terms of how we can use the dual layers of the state and 

13 federal prosecution to close the gap that we perceived and how hate crimes are 

14 prosecuted. I want to ask a variation of that question to this panel. A number of 

15 you, I think all of you, in one shape or another, touched on the question − I'm 

16 paraphrasing here − what mechanisms can we use to incentivize, equip, educate 

17 our communities to, on the one hand, understand what their rights and 

18 resources and responsibilities are and to develop a sense of relationship that 

19 would give them the trust and the confidence to be able to feel comfortable in 

20 reporting incidents that happen to them? 

21 On the other side of the coin, we talked about how do we train both before, and 

22 Professor Coston spoke a lot about post-victimization training. How do we train 

23 our first responders, our police, our hospitals to handle the situation? I'd like to 

24 bring those two things together and really focus on the word incentivize. How 

25 can we incentivize both sets of stakeholders? This really is an adaptive 

26 leadership question, how do we change the culture such that this is not merely 

27 checking a box, this is not really just understanding what your resources are, 

28 there's an incentive. Understanding, some of my colleagues talked about, that 

29 the vision of a better tomorrow lies with each of us. And, what can we do to 

30 come together to show that all of us, victims, law enforcement, first responders, 

31 all of us in the room here today, we all have an equal and important stake in 

32 reaching that future? 

33 I would like all four of you to weigh in on this and give me one or two concrete, 

34 specific things on what we can do to incentivize those two groups. The two sides 

35 of the coin to work together to grab that stake.

36 Liz Coston: I think that one of the inherent challenges is always getting people to 

37 understand how participation is going to benefit them in these processes. For 

38 law enforcement, it's important to recognize that until we actually know the 

39 extent and scope of the problem, we're not going to have adequate responses 

40 to that problem. If law enforcement aren't properly reporting when hate crimes 

41 occur, when hate incidents occur, then it's going to be very difficult for us to 

42 truly understand the nature and scope of the problem. In order to proactively 

43 solve those problems, we need the data to understand them.

APPENDIX B: TRANSCRIPT March 29, 2019 57 of 63
1 I think in terms of healthcare providers, one of the really important things is 

2 that victims of hate crimes experience serious, long-term consequences from 

3 victimization. Cuts, bruises, scrapes, those may heal relatively easily, but the 

4 traumatic impact lasts a lifetime. Healthcare providers have to continuously 

5 respond to the needs of victims. If we can be proactive about treating people 

6 sensitively and proactive about getting them help early on when they need it 

7 the most, we can prevent some of those most negative consequences down the 

8 road.

9 Liz Coston: Obviously, there is a huge stake for communities that are impacted by violence. 

10 There has been a long history of those communities having negative 

11 experiences with the police and also with healthcare providers. So, building that 

12 trust back up is something that is essential, but it's a long road. Thank you.

13 Doron Ezickson: Thank you for the question. I think the challenge is one about how do we 

14 leverage institutions to meet the challenge that you're speaking about. If we 

15 think about trying to change the heart and mind, the focus of every individual 

16 who might be well intentioned but is not informed. That is an enormous task. 

17 What we can do is go to the places where they, our citizens, are. We can 

18 redefine, as I have challenged many universities and school systems, to redefine 

19 education as including a basic understanding of the history of diversity in our 

20 country, of the challenges we face, of the concepts in our Constitution that 

21 ensure to us, each as individuals, equal rights no matter what our identity.

22 We need to get back to some very basic concepts and make them part of how 

23 we define education. We must engage our leaders of faith. And, where people 

24 congregate, in a sense of faith, bring resources to those institutions for the 

25 conversation, to our community centers. And, we need to implore our leaders 

26 to use the bully-pulpit, in whatever leadership role they play, to encourage the 

27 sense that diversity, rather than it being a source of division, is actually 

28 historically our strength and it can be again.

29 It is an education process, and there are many institutions represented here 

30 today and others who are ready and willing to partner in that regard. But unless 

31 we figure out a way to leverage that to scale, I think we're going to continue to 

32 have a challenge that we will be discussing every year.

33 Harpreet Mohka: It's an interesting question. When I think of incentive, it means dollar signs or 

34 some kind of motivating factor to act. But, in this scenario I would think showing 

35 the community just the benefits of these programs. Sharing with communities 

36 and law enforcement, and community leaders that these practices have been 

37 done across the country. They have proved over and over again to be effective 

38 addressing and preventing hate crimes − by educating and getting to know each 

39 other, by engaging with each other, and collaborating, and then maintaining 

40 that contact. We serve to address these problems, and if we don't then we are 

41 going to see issues as they are and they're going to continue. Tying them to the 

42 action, as my colleagues have said, getting the community out there. Whether it 

APPENDIX B: TRANSCRIPT March 29, 2019 58 of 63
1 be your faith-based institutions, your community centers, your YMCA, your 

2 hospitals, this is the way to go, in the future.

3 If we're not talking to each other, how are we going to be able to serve each 

4 other? I think it's common sense, for them to show a part of education, as our 

5 training that we do, as our ongoing training that we provide for everybody in 

6 our jobs, in our life, in our schools. I think it will be key to show these benefits, 

7 and that they are long-lasting and effective.

8 Brian Johns: The two things came to mind when you asked the question on incentivizing. 

9 One is that we think a lot, organizationally, around self-interest. The community 

10 has a huge self interest in feelings they can trust, those they would report hate 

11 crimes to. To that end, we worked for years in a couple of places around 

12 immigrant rights. Then, worked after that on a city hiring campaign, where we 

13 went to the law enforcement and said, "Look, you all are able to do your job and 

14 your self-interest and police the community better if you know what's going on 

15 and people aren't scared to come to you". The folks, mainly Spanish speaking 

16 folks in the area I'm thinking about, first off, helped law enforcement figure out 

17 where to advertise. And, said, "Look, we want to see your numbers on what 

18 your local police force looks like. Let's expand that to the school systems, and 

19 let's figure out how that helps you all do your jobs too".

20 We did a similar thing around the school-to-prison pipeline and working with 

21 teachers − allowing them to also have the opportunity to talk about, I can teach 

22 all the kids better if I know how to relate to them. Those are the things that we 

23 think about, how do we figure out what is in the best interest of the folks who 

24 we need to make the change. That's been our experience.

25 Committee Chair: Thank you very much and thank you to all four of you. This concludes our 

26 scheduled panels. I want to thank everybody for their participation. You've 

27 provided a very rich record for us to consider as we write our report. 

28 OPEN PUBLIC COMMENT SESSION 

29 In a moment, we will take brief comments from members of the audience. Let 

30 me say to those that are joining on the phone and wish to speak, please indicate 

31 and get in line by pressing * 1 on your phone now. I will ask the operator to 

32 provide the number of people on the line who wish to speak.

33 As I said at the start of the meeting, every speaker will have up to five minutes 

34 for comments, no questions. Because of time constraints, please understand 

35 that I will cut you off if you go beyond the allotted time. Also, please note that if 

36 you are speaking about something other than hate crimes I will cut you off 

37 because that is the sole focus of today's briefing.

38 Operator, can you tell me how many speakers we have on the line?

APPENDIX B: TRANSCRIPT March 29, 2019 59 of 63
1 Operator: It looks like we still have three Committee members and three members of the 

2 public.

3 Committee Chair: Okay. How many people in the meeting room would like to speak?

4 I'll start with those in the meeting room. Then, I'll go to the operator for any 

5 members of the public who want to speak.

6 I ask the speakers to state their names.

7 Hurunnessa Fariad: Good afternoon, my name is Hurunnessa Fariad, I am head of outreach and 

8 interface at the All Dulles Area Muslim Society, also known as the ADAMS 

9 Center located in Sterling, Virginia. We serve over 25,000 American Muslims. 

10 We are the second largest mosque in the whole United States and the largest in 

11 Virginia. I'm here today to relay to you all some of the issues that the American 

12 Muslim community in Virginia is dealing with due to hate crimes.

13 Some of them are not crimes, but they're incidents that could relate and could 

14 come into being a hate crime. Although nothing I will be saying is new news. For 

15 the past few years I have been hearing stories from my own community about 

16 Muslims being verbally harassed in grocery stores, some being physically 

17 attacked, or even both. We are seeing a rise in the amount of people talking 

18 about these incidents within their family and peer circles but most of the time 

19 are too hesitant in informing law enforcement and/or don't perceive verbal 

20 threat or harassment as incident to report.

21 Working at the second largest mosque in the United States comes with its share 

22 of burdens due to Islamophobia and the rise in white supremacy. We receive 

23 threats on a regular basis. The last one came via email to the mosque just a few 

24 days ago. Now imagine the impact these incidents have on our community. The 

25 amount of stress parents are dealing with because they do not know if their 

26 children and family members are safe to come to the mosque. The biggest fear 

27 has always been the New Zealand type of homegrown terrorist attack at our 

28 own mosque.

29 Our children are being verbally, and in some cases physically, harassed at 

30 schools. Some of our children do not want to return to school, some girls are 

31 forced to take off their Hijabs because their fellow classmates are constantly 

32 pulling at them or pull their headscarves right off their heads. Others are going 

33 through depression, while others start to disassociate themselves from even 

34 being called Muslim. A few years ago my own two daughters, who were 15 and 

35 13 at the time and wore the headscarf, were verbally harassed at Reston Town 

36 Center by an elderly white man. He followed them for two blocks, called them 

37 all sorts of names like terrorist, immigrant, and infidels. No one on the street 

38 jumped in to help them. They finally decided to run back to the parking garage 

39 and hid behind my car. For a long time they did not want to go back to Reston 

40 Town Center.

APPENDIX B: TRANSCRIPT March 29, 2019 60 of 63
1 The emotional, psychological, and physical trauma that impacts our community 

2 due to hate crimes are much more serious than we think. Needless to say, hate 

3 crimes against the Jewish, Sikh, and Hindu community is also on the rise all over 

4 the country. At ADAMS, we are working with local, public schools and law 

5 enforcement in providing sensitivity training for all teachers and staff on the 

6 American Muslim community. We feel this is one way we can educate the public 

7 on who we so that if any of them have negative perceptions of us, we are able 

8 to change their minds.

9 Hurunnessa Fariad: Although it is a small part of the solution, I believe that if we all work together 

10 to educate the American public, at the same time hold those accountable for 

11 their violent acts, we can slowly leave a better America for our children.

12 Committee Chair: Thank you very much. Operator, can you queue up our first speaker on the 

13 phone?

14 Operator: Just a reminder to members of the public, if you would like to ask a question or 

15 make a comment, please press * 1. I have no one on the phone line wanting to 

16 ask a question or make a comment.

17 Committee Chair: All right. Thank you. In that case, we have two more speakers who are in the 

18 room here today. Let me call Mr. Price Dennis.

19 Please introduce yourself for the record.

20 Aidan Price Dennis: My name is Aidan Price-Dennis. I am a Virginia high school student. The first 

21 high school I went to, I was severely bullied for being black and Jewish. I decided

22 to transfer to another school and did not go back. I decided to transfer to 

23 another school. I found out on Facebook that there were some students at my 

24 first high school that were posting really racist things on social media. When it 

25 was brought to the school board, nothing was done. There were pictures that 

26 surfaced of them with swastikas in the bathrooms and racial slurs in the 

27 bathrooms. For Halloween, one kid came to the school as Hitler, did the whole 

28 pose and everything and nothing was done about it.

29 I hope the Commission on Civil Rights is able to facilitate change in Virginia. 

30 Committee Chair: Thank you for sharing your experiences. I'd like to recognize Mr. Sable. Can you 

31 please start by introducing yourself for the record?

32 Michael Sable: My name is Michael Sable. I'm actually from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. I am here 

33 somewhat by happenstance today. I came to support a member of this 

34 Committee. I will say that I did live in Virginia for three years, from 2008 to 2011 

35 in Virginia Beach. I actually thought it was rather tolerant − compared to 

36 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania − with issues of hate and all. However, I'm a member 

37 of the Tree of Life Or L'Simcha Congregation. The members of my congregation, 

APPENDIX B: TRANSCRIPT March 29, 2019 61 of 63
1 who, by happenstance I was not there the day the gunman came through. 

2 Several of the congregations, I knew each person. This is exactly what we're 

3 talking about, how both a lack of political leadership but also the lack of action 

4 by us parents. It's up to all of us to set an example for our children. For instance, 

5 the situation that Aidan has gone through, we all know. I think we all have heard 

6 some sort of racist or intolerant joke being told in our presence.

7 The most effective way to deal with that is not to be silent but rather to call out 

8 that person. It took a long time in my life to be able to do that. To actually speak 

9 up, that it wasn't us versus them because usually those jokes are based on 

10 ignorance when it comes to that. What I wanted to say is that I know the 

11 members of the panel − and I really do appreciate hearing from those panelists 

12 − they're working with organizations to change the public's view of things. But 

13 what is really important is something I learned many years ago when I heard Elie 

14 Wiesel, a survivor of the Holocaust and who was a brilliant man, speak. He said 

15 something that I still remember to this day. That the opposite of love is not 

16 hate, it's indifference. That saying that we say to people is something that we 

17 really need to have adults use. “You see something, say something; do 

18 something.” 

19 When we see intolerance and hate and all, we need to call it out. When 

20 someone's being bullied, it doesn't matter that they don't look like us. It doesn't 

21 matter that English may be a second language for them. One has to step in and 

22 if we do that and model that for our children, I have three adult daughters and I 

23 believe that each one of them does that. They don't stand for intolerance. 

24 They're far ahead of where it took me a long time to get to. Really, what we 

25 need to do is have parents and adults, not just in schools, but everyplace is to 

26 have them take responsibility. All of us to take responsibility for actually not 

27 being quiet.

28 So often, that is seen as validation for things that we would never ever 

29 advocate. I hope that we will be able to use that, to be able to really have 

30 people look into their hearts, and to behave differently. Don't be quiet, 

31 challenge when something like that hateful speech is being used to turn people 

32 against each other. Thank you for the time.

33 Committee Chair: Thank you. Before we conclude I'll just check in again with the operator to see if 

34 any members of the public on the phone would like to make a comment.

35 Operator: I'm currently showing no members of the public queued up. If you do have a 

36 question, please press * 1 now.

37 I'm still currently showing no questions in the queue.

38 Committee Chair: Thank you. Again, I want to thank all of our presenters, the members of the 

39 public for attending today's briefing, for sharing your thoughts and your 

APPENDIX B: TRANSCRIPT March 29, 2019 62 of 63
1 experiences. In particular, for all our presenters I appreciate the enormous work 

2 that you've put in to preparing for today. 

3 Just a reminder that the record will remain open through April 29th, 2019. If 

4 anyone would like to submit a written comment, please mail it to the Eastern 

5 Regional office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue 

6 North West, Suite 1150 Washington, D.C. 20425, or, you can email it to 

7 ero@usccr.gov. Thank you for your time and consideration. This meeting is now 

8 adjourned.

9 

APPENDIX B: TRANSCRIPT March 29, 2019 63 of 63
Expert: Doron Ezickson, Regional Director, Anti-Defamation League (ADL)

Drafter: K. Shiek Pal

Editor: Maria Almond

FINDINGS

The following findings result directly from the expert testimony presented to the Virginia Advisory 

Committee, and reflect the views of the cited panelists. While each assertion has not been 

independently verified by the Committee, panelists were chosen to testify based upon their professional 

experience, academic research, subject matter expertise, and firsthand knowledge of the topics at hand.

1. There has been a statistically significant rise in hate crimes in Virginia

a) The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) has found that hate crimes are significantly underreported. 1

This is due to many reasons, including victims often feeling ashamed or intimidated at being

targeted, a lack of knowledge of available resources or applicable legal protections, and the

implementation of federal policies that further isolate communities being targeted for hate

crimes.

b) This underreporting of hate crime data is significant, not only because it undermines the 

accuracy of the data, but, also because it may deter members of the community from coming

forward to report hate crimes. 2

c) The ADL has measured a stark increase in hate crimes over the past two years. During this

period, the ADL has also observed an increase in hate filled language, memes, stereotyping and 

scapegoating injected into the mainstream policy debates and translated into federal policies

and other actions that marginalize communities already vulnerable to hate crimes, deterring

individuals from reporting such crimes to local police. Consequently, the data has suffered,

which is troubling. 3

d) The ADL's recent Audit of Anti-Semitic Incidents in the United States documented a 57%

increase in the number of anti-Semitic incidents reported in 2017, compared to 2016. That

increase is the largest one-year increase in the 40 years that ADL has conducted this audit. With

respect to hate crimes, specifically in 2017 the FBI documented a 17% increase in hate crimes

nationally, the third successive year of increase, and with a 58% increase in Virginia.

Unfortunately, even with those numbers, ADL notes thatthere is still a significant 

underreporting of hate crimes across the United States. On a national level, many law

enforcement agencies fail to participate, and of those that did, only a small number, 13%,

reported even a single hate crime to the FBI in 2017. That means that 87% of all participating

police agencies affirmatively reported zero hate crimes to the FBI. 4

1

See Doron Ezickson, Testimony before the Virginia Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 

March 29, 2019, Transcript pg. 36 lines 24-29; lines 36-37. Available at: 

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1iehlA3tstU1W0Z0178sYbyZ5fjb9MgaBZ1tQ77XPG6Q/edit 2 Ezickson Testimony, 2019 Transcript, Pg. 37, lines 1-5. 3 Ezickson Testimony, 2019 Transcript, Pg. 36, lines 24-41. 4 Ezickson Testimony, 2019 Transcript, Pg. 36, lines 30-41.

APPENDIX C: Thematic Summary of Testimony by Panelist
e) Hate crimes are intended to intimidate not only the immediate victim, but also the community. 5

Because these crimes are predicated upon certain identifiable traits of the victim, such as 

race/ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, there is a generalized fear throughout the entire 

community that anyone could become a victim based solely on the shared trait. The use of 

memes, vandalism, graffiti, and other property damage is often directed at the targeted 

community as a whole rather than specific individual victims.

f) The damage is done by bigotry, therefore it cannot be measured solely in terms of physical 

injury or dollars and cents harm to institutions. 6 The psychological harm to both individual 

victims and their communities, and the associated damage done to notions of assimilation, 

identity, and civic engagement & belonging are all additional aspects of harm emanating from 

hate crimes. The residual fear, isolation, and distrust that is often sown among all members of 

the targeted community serve to amplify the damage of hate crimes.

2. Description of the Nature and Type of Hate Crimes and Identifying the Targeted Groups

a) By definition, hate crimes involve the intentional selection of the victim because of their 

characteristics, something that victim cannot change to prevent future crime. 7 

b) By making members of targeted communities feel fearful, angry and suspicious of other groups, 

and of the power structure that is supposed to protect them, these incidents damage the fabric 

of our society and our democracy, and they fragment communities. 8

c) Proper identification of hate crimes is critical, not only to preserve and communicate, or 

maintain community trust, but also because victims themselves are not always aware of the 

existence of hate crime laws designed to protect them. 9 

3. Legal Obstacles and Barriers to Better Law Enforcement & Prosecution of Hate Crimes

a) Law enforcement must understand why some of the most likely targets of hate violence are 

often the least likely to report these crimes. 10 Having this broader perspective will enable law 

enforcement to accurately understand the potential disparity between reported crimes and 

anecdotal evidence of increasing crimes.

b) Victims are far more likely to report a hate crime if they believe that the police are ready and 

able to respond effectively and take them seriously. 11 The barrier here lies in the level of trust 

and the relationship between vulnerable communities and local law enforcement. A degree of 

familiarity and trust will make it more likely that hate crimes will be reported, either directly by 

the victim or a community member. Therefore, fostering closer relationships between law 

enforcement and the communities they serve, as well as developing knowledge and familiarity 

of different communities (particularly those defined by religion, national origin, or ethnicity) for 

5 Ezickson Testimony, 2019 Transcript, Pg. 36, lines 13-16. 6 Ezickson Testimony, 2019 Transcript, Pg. 36, lines 17-19. 7 Ezickson Testimony, 2019 Transcript, Pg. 37, lines 27-29. 8 Ezickson Testimony, 2019 Transcript, Pg. 36, lines 19-23. 9 Ezickson Testimony, 2019 Transcript, Pg. 37, lines 22-25. 10 Ezickson Testimony, 2019 Transcript, Pg. 37, lines 30-32. 11 Ezickson Testimony, 2019 Transcript, Pg. 37, lines 3-5.

APPENDIX C: Thematic Summary of Testimony by Panelist
the police and prosecutors serving those communities is very important to improving the 

reporting, identification, and elimination of hate crimes.

4. Recommendations and Best Practices 

a) ADL supports mandatory training on hate crime identification, response, and reporting. 12 

i. Virginia should require comprehensive training for law enforcement, with respect to 

identifying, responding to and reporting all bias motivated crimes. Unfortunately, such a 

requirement does not currently exist. 13 

ii. Mandatory hate crime training for law enforcement, with adequate funding and 

resources, is essential for several reasons, including the need for law enforcement to be 

able to identify victims of hate crimes and respond appropriately, in a manner that is 

sensitive, not only to the victims, but also to the community at large. 14

c) ADL also recommends a state-level hate crimes task force. 15 

i. Virginia should convene a statewide hate crime task force to ensure hate crime laws are 

effectively enforced, that crimes are accurately reported, that law enforcement and 

communities are sufficiently trained, and to maintain public awareness of hate crimes. 16

ii. The task force should consider whether diversity awareness education would benefit 

persons convicted of hate crimes in Virginia. If so, a curriculum should be developed. 17

12 Ezickson Testimony, 2019 Transcript, Pg. 37, lines 14-19. 13 Ezickson Testimony, 2019 Transcript, Pg. 37, lines 14-19. 14 Ezickson Testimony, 2019 Transcript, Pg. 37, lines 20-41. 15 Ezickson Testimony, 2019 Transcript, Pg. 38, lines 1-8. 16 Ezickson Testimony, 2019 Transcript, Pg. 38, lines 1-8. 17 Ezickson Testimony, 2019 Transcript, Pg. 38, lines 9-11. 

APPENDIX C: Thematic Summary of Testimony by Panelist
Expert: Barbara Oudekerk, Statistician, Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), US Department of Justice (DOJ)

Drafter: Danny Vargas

Editor: Jason Brennan

FINDINGS

The following findings result directly from the expert testimony presented to the Virginia Advisory 

Committee, and reflect the views of the cited panelists. While each assertion has not been 

independently verified by the Committee, panelists were chosen to testify based upon their professional 

experience, academic research, subject matter expertise, and firsthand knowledge of the topics at hand.

1. The testimony implies there is a statistically significant decrease in totalhate crimes. However, 

there is a statistically significant increase in victim’s reportingof hate crimes.

a) More victims are reporting crimes as hate crimes in recent years. The evidentiary burden for 

victims to claim something is a hate crime is far lower than for police to record it as such. 1

b) Between 2009 and 2017, the number of hate crimes not reported to police decreased from 

172,000 to 87,000. 2

c) In 2009, 40% of hate crimes victimizations were reported to police, in 2017 it was 55%. 3

d) Using the statistics from 1b and 1c, we can calculate that there were 286,666 total hate 

crimes in 2009 and 193,333 total hate crimes in 2017.

2. Description of the Nature and Type of Hate Crimes and Identifying the Targeted Groups

a) The testimony concerns general statistics but does not describe the specifics.

b) In both the NCVS and the UCR, the largest proportion of hate crimes were motivated by race 

or ethnicity. 4

c) In the NCVS, the next largest proportions were motived by gender, sexual orientation or 

disability. 

d) In the UCR, the next largest proportion of hate crimes were motivated by religion. 5

3. Obstacles and Barriers to Better Law Enforcement & Prosecution of Hate Crimes 

a) Few hate crimes are reported to police and officially recorded as such

i. According to the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), between 2013 and 2017, 

there was an annual average of 204,600 hate crimes. 6 Approximately half of these 

crimes were reported to the police7 Of these, 22% told the police it was a hate crime. 8

ii. For 15,200 of those, victims said the police identified the crime as a hate crime9

iii. During the same timeframe (2013-2017), there were only 7.500 hate crimes reported 

through the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) system. 10

1 Oudekerk Testimony, 2019 Transcript, Pg. 10, line 27-29. 2 Oudekerk Testimony, 2019 Transcript, Pg. 11, lines 17-19 3 Oudekerk Testimony, 2019 Transcript, Pg. 11, lines 21-22 4 Oudekerk Testimony, 2019 Transcript, Pg. 11, lines 10-11 5 Oudekerk Testimony, 2019 Transcript, Pg. 11, lines 12-14 6 Oudekerk Testimony, 2019 Transcript, Pg. 10, line 38

7 Oudekerk Testimony, 2019 Transcript, Pg. 10, line 39

8 Oudekerk Testimony, 2019 Transcript, Pg. 10, line 41

9 Oudekerk Testimony, 2019 Transcript, Pg. 11, line 3

10 Oudekerk Testimony, 2019 Transcript, Pg. 11, line 6

APPENDIX C: Thematic Summary of Testimony by Panelist
b) Various reasons why victims do not report hate crimes to police

i. About 20% say they felt police couldn’t do anything about it or would not help. 11

ii. Others claims it was not important enough to report. 12

4. Recommendations and Best Practices

a) Different data sets acquire and compile data in different ways and use different classifications. 

Accordingly, we should be cautious when using multiple data sets or making comparisons across 

data. 13

11 Oudekerk Testimony, 2019 Transcript, Pg. 17, lines 6 - 7 12 Oudekerk Testimony, 2019 Transcript, Pg. 11, lines 10-11 13 Oudekerk Testomony, 2019 Transcript, Pg. 32, lines 5-15.

APPENDIX C: Thematic Summary of Testimony by Panelist
Expert: Joe Platania, Charlottesville’s Commonwealth Attorney

Drafter: William Hyde

Editor: Jason Brennan

FINDINGS

The following findings result directly from the expert testimony presented to the Virginia Advisory 

Committee, and reflect the views of the cited panelists. While each assertion has not been 

independently verified by the Committee, panelists were chosen to testify based upon their professional 

experience, academic research, subject matter expertise, and firsthand knowledge of the topics at hand.

1. The expert’s testimony does not establish whether there has been a statistically significant rise 

in hate crimes in Virginia

a) We do not have good data on the number of hate crimes that occur in this country. 1

b) Many cases that likely are hate crimes are not prosecuted as such (see §3) and so do not appear 

in state statistics.2

2. Description of the Nature and Type of Hate Crimes and Identifying the Targeted Groups

a) Virginia has only a few specific hate crime laws. They are: Wearing a mask in public, burning a 

cross, burning an object, displaying a noose, and placing swastikas on certain properties. 3 

b) Physical assault, battery, murder, and other violent offenses, as well as various property crimes, 

can also be prosecuted as hate crimes if prosecutors can demonstrate the attacks were 

motivated by racial or other demographic animus. 

3. Legal Obstacles and Barriers to Better Law Enforcement & Prosecution of Hate Crimes

c) While misdemeanor assault, battery, and trespassing for the purpose of damaging property can 

be enhanced to a felony if the state can prove that the actions were motivated by racial, ethnic 

or religious animus, it is difficult to prove such animus exists. Accordingly, prosecutors often 

decline to do so as it may cost them a conviction. 4

d) Offenses that have hate as a motivation are often charged as regular felony offenses. 5 This 

makes convictions easier because the prosecutors need not prove racial, ethnic, or religious 

animus, which is difficult to do. 6

e) Prosecutors must be careful not to charge people with hate crimes simply because of their 

ideology. They must demonstrate a particular crime was motivated by hate, and cannot charge 

1 Platania Testimony, 2019 Transcript, Pg. 5, lines 3-4; Pg. 20, lines 15-17. 2 Platania Testimony, 2019 Transcript, Pg. 7, lines 11-14. 3 Platania Testimony, 2019 Transcript, Pg. 6, lines 7-12. 4 Platania Testimony, 2019 Transcript, Pg. 6, lines 16-24. 5 Platania Testimony, 2019 Transcript, Pg. 6, lines 24-27. 6 Platania Testimony, 2019 Transcript, Pg. 6, lines 33-35. 

APPENDIX C: Thematic Summary of Testimony by Panelist
someone with a hate crime simply because they hate posted hateful images or subscribe to a 

racist or hateful ideology. 7

i. This can lead to public dissatisfaction with prosecutions because victims and the public 

may feel that the real issues about the motivation of criminals and the reason they 

chose certain victims were not addressed. 8

f) Many people who subscribe to hateful ideologies understand where the legal lines between free 

speech and hate crimes are drawn and knowingly tailor their behavior to be as extreme as 

possible without crossing the line into prosecutable conduct. 9

4. Recommendations and Best Practices 

a) Create a working group to study the problem of hate crime laws and make concrete 

recommendations for solutions. 10

i. Better training may lead to more accurate reporting. 11

ii. Reporting needs to be standardized and accurate. 12

7 Platania Testimony, 2019 Transcript, Pg. 26, lines 7-26. 8 Platania Testimony, 2019 Transcript, Pg. 26, lines 7-26. 9 Platania Testimony, 2019 Transcript, Pg. 30, lines 21-29. 10 Platania Testimony, 2019 Transcript, Pg. 30, line 41; Pg. 31, lines 1-6. 11 Platania Testimony, 2019 Transcript, Pg. 20, lines 8-9, 19-21. 12 Platania Testimony, 2019 Transcript, Pg. 6, lines 33-37, Pg. 25, lines 1-5.

APPENDIX C: Thematic Summary of Testimony by Panelist
Summary of Testimony of Kai Wiggins, Policy Analyst at the Arab American Institute

 

Drafter: Brenda Abdelall

Editor: Ann Haney

NB: Error on top of pg 11 – lines 1 – 6. Does not appear that Kai Wiggins made a comment in the middle 

of Oudekerk testimony. 

1) Any data or commentary reflecting a significant increase in hate crimes or bias incidentsin 

Virginia at the state or regional levels

a) Historically and, as with many communities in the United States, threats of targeted hate 

violence have prevented Arab Americans from full participation in a democratic process. 1

2) The nature and types of hate crimes/bias incidents and the affected or targeted groups

a) Wiggins notes that amongst civil rights advocacy groups, there is a heightened awareness 

and a general sense that hate crimes and bias incidents are on the rise. Nonetheless, 

Wiggins notes that there are inaccuracies and a general trend of underreporting reflected 

section in the data. 2

b) The 2001 data shows a greater number of hate crimes reported, because that was a time of 

incredible backlash against the Arab and Muslim and Sikh communities, as well as those 

communities perceived to be such. 3 

3) Any challenges or barriers that may prevent law enforcement from addressing hate crimes, 

including whether Virginia hate crime related laws should be modified. 

a) The Hate Crime Statistics Act 4 mandates thatthe Attorney General collect data on crimes that 

manifest evidence of prejudice based on race, gender and gender identity, religion, disability, 

sexual orientation or ethnicity. The Federal Bureau of Investigation carries out this requirement 

through its administration of a Uniform Crime Reporting Program, which publishes annual 

statistics based on crime data submitted from federal, state and local law enforcement. 5 

b) State and local law enforcement participation in the Uniform Crime Reporting system is 

voluntary. However, in some states, including Virginia 6, there is an active requirement for law 

enforcement to report hate crimes and other types of crimes to state-level repositories for 

criminal justice information. 7 

c) State agencies have a greater incentive to report hate crimes if required by state law to submit 

hate crime data as a component of other state data transmitted to the federal government. 8 

d) In analyzing VA hate crime statute, the Arab American Institute asks three questions. 9 

i) Does the state have a hate crime statute applicable to a broad range of criminal conduct 

that offers inclusive protections for hate crime victims?

1 See Kai Wiggins, Testimony before the Virginia Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, March 

29, 2019, Transcript pg. 11, lines 37-38. Available at: 

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1iehlA3tstU1W0Z0178sYbyZ5fjb9MgaBZ1tQ77XPG6Q/edit 2 Wiggins Testimony, 2019 Transcript, Pg. 21, lines 31-35. 3 Wiggins Testimony, 2019 Transcript, Pg. 21, lines 10-16. 4 28 U.S.C. § 534 5 Wiggins Testimony, 2019 Transcript, Pg. 12, lines 3-9. 6 Va. Code Ann. § 52-8.5 7 Wiggins Testimony, 2019 Transcript, Pg. 12, lines 10-18. 8 Wiggins Testimony, 2019 Transcript, Pg. 12, lines 21-24. 9 Wiggins Testimony, 2019 Transcript, Pg. 13, lines 14-21. 

APPENDIX C: Thematic Summary of Testimony by Panelist
Summary of Testimony of Kai Wiggins, Policy Analyst at the Arab American Institute

 

(1) Virginia has a hate crime statute10, but it is not applicable to a broad range of criminal 

conduct. The Virginia hate crimes statute does not offer inclusive protections for hate 

crime victims. 11 

(2) With simple assault, assault and battery, or entering another home, there are enhanced 

penalties if the person or persons home is selected because of their race, religious 

conviction, color or national origin, are subject to enhanced penalties. 12

(3) One gap in Virginia hate crime statute13 is that it does not extend enhanced penalties to 

other criminal conduct, such as murder or arson. Further, the statute does not extend to 

sexual orientation, gender, disability, or gender identity. 14 

ii) Does the state require law enforcement agencies to report hate crime and collect hate crime 

data?

(1) “Virginia code15 requires law enforcement agencies to report hate crimes to the Virginia 

State Police, which maintains a central repository for collection and analysis of hate 

crime information.” 16 

(2) The Virginia code predates the federal HCSA and has its own definition of hate crime17. 

The definition and range of criminal conduct covered by the Virginia code’s reporting 

requirement 18 is broader than the Virginia Criminal code’s hate crime penalty 

enhancement. 19 

(3) Both the reporting provision and the criminal code do not include crimes motivated by

sexual orientation, gender, disability or gender identity. 20

iii) Does the state authorize mandatory basic and in-service hate crime training for law 

enforcement personnel?

(1) The Virginia Department of Criminal Justice Services requires all law enforcement offices 

to complete a statewide certification, which includes some references to investigating 

and reporting on hate crimes. 21 

(2) Unlike other states, Virginia state law does not mandate hate crime training for law 

enforcement. 22

e) Some hate crimes are also not reported due to the transition in the method and format of 

reporting hate crimes. 

i) “Historically, law enforcement officers, agents have reported hate crimes using the 

summary reporting system, which is now a rather antiquated format that communicates a 

narrow amount of information, and which could also require a supplemental incident report 

form when reporting. We are now undergoing a transition to the national incident-based 

reporting system, which represents a far more comprehensive and detailed data collection. 

10 Va. Code Ann. § 52-8.5 11 Wiggins Testimony, 2019 Transcript, Pg. 13, lines 22-24. 12 Wiggins Testimony, 2019 Transcript, Pg. 13, lines 24-28. 13 Va. Code Ann. § 52-8.5 14 Wiggins Testimony, 2019 Transcript, Pg. 13, lines 2-30. 15 Va. Code Ann. § 52-8.5 16 Wiggins Testimony, 2019 Transcript, Pg. 13, lines 33-36. 17 Va. Code Ann. § 52-8.5 18 See generally Va. Code Ann. §18.2-57, 18.2-121, 18.2-422 – 18.2-423.2. 19 Wiggins Testimony, 2019 Transcript, Pg. 13, lines 35-49. 20 Wiggins Testimony, 2019 Transcript, Pg. 13, line 43 to pg. 14, line 3. 21 Wiggins Testimony, 2019 Transcript, Pg. 14, lines 4-9. 22 Wiggins Testimony, 2019 Transcript, Pg. 14, lines 6-9.

APPENDIX C: Thematic Summary of Testimony by Panelist
Summary of Testimony of Kai Wiggins, Policy Analyst at the Arab American Institute

 

ii) Wiggins notes a specific bias incident in Kansas which was omitted from the federal hate 

crime data. The local police department reported the crime to the Kansas Bureau of 

Investigation using the summary reporting system due to limited resources. However, the 

information was not aggregated into incident-based reporting and thus not reflected in 

federal data. 23 

f) Wiggins notes that there are often glaring omissions within the hate crime reporting system. He 

refers to the events in Charlottesville in August 2017 not reported in federal hate crime data. 

The Arab American Institute determined this omission after a public records request to the 

Virginia State Police. 24 He also notes that law enforcement in Virginia has never reported gender 

identity or gender motivated hate crimes to the FBI. 25 

4) Best practices that law enforcement and communities should consider implementing to reduce 

the number of hate crimes and bias incidents, and to accurately tabulate statistics on such crimes. 

a) Wiggins suggests that the Department of Justice conduct a comprehensive review of the 

relationship between state-level laws and their legal framework, and the federal standards and 

guidelines. 26 

b) Regarding Congressional efforts, Wiggins notes a potential solution may be to require states and 

local governments that receive federal grants to collect information on hate crimes policies and 

programs in place. 27 

c) Wiggins notes “deep concerns” regarding expanding the definition of domestic terrorism. He 

notes those concerns relate to efforts to expand systems used to subject certain communities to 

unjust treatment though counter-terrorism efforts. 28 

23 Wiggins Testimony, 2019 Transcript, Pg. 24, lines 11-19. 24 Wiggins Testimony, 2019 Transcript, Pg. 17, lines 14-19. 25 Wiggins Testimony, 2019 Transcript, Pg. 17, lines 28-29. 26 Wiggins Testimony, 2019 Transcript, Pg. 18, lines 16-20. 27 Wiggins Testimony, 2019 Transcript, Pg. 18, lines 33-37. 28 Wiggins Testimony, 2019 Transcript, Pg. 28, lines 28-31.

APPENDIX C: Thematic Summary of Testimony by Panelist
Expert: Dr. Liz Coston, Dept. of Sociology- Virginia Commonwealth 

Drafter: Lisalyn R. Jacobs

Editor: Ann Haney

FINDINGS

The following findings result directly from the expert testimony presented to the Virginia Advisory 

Committee, and reflect the views of the cited panelists. While each assertion has not been 

independently verified by the Committee, panelists were chosen to testify based upon their professional 

experience, academic research, subject matter expertise, and firsthand knowledge of the topics at hand.

1. There has been a statistically significant rise in hate crimes in Virginia

a) The number of hate crime incidents has been on the rise, both nationally and in Virginia. 1

b) The number of hate crimes reported by the FBI has been rising since 2014. 2

c) Hate crimes are intended to intimidate not only the immediate victim, but also the community. 3

d) Entire communities often experience fear and anger as a result. 4

2. Description of the Nature and Type of Hate Crimes and Identifying the Targeted Groups

a) Hate crimes differ from crimes not motivated by bias. 5 

b) As bias crimes, hate crimes are more likely to be violent and committed by multiple offenders. 6 

c) Hate crimes are more likely to result in injury to the victim, and additionally victims often 

experience long-term mental health consequences. 7

d) Mental health impacts can include PTSD, anxiety, depression and other consequences. 8

3. Legal Obstacles and Barriers to Better Law Enforcement & Prosecution of Hate Crimes

a) Less than half of hate crime victims report the crimes to law enforcement. 9

b) Even fewer report or seek services from organizations or health care providers that are able to 

provide post victimization services. 10

1See Dr. Liz Coston, Testimony before the Virginia Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 

March 29, 2019, Transcript pg. 34 lines 3-5. Available at: 

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1iehlA3tstU1W0Z0178sYbyZ5fjb9MgaBZ1tQ77XPG6Q/edit 

2 Coston Testimony, 2019 Transcript, Pg. 34, lines 3-4.

3 Coston Testimony, 2019 Transcript, Pg.34, lines 21-23.

4 Coston Testimony, 2019 Transcript, Pg.34, lines 23-24

5 Coston Testimony, 2019 Transcript, Pg. 34, lines 14-15.

6 Coston Testimony, 2019 Transcript, Pg.34, lines 15-16.

7 Coston Testimony, 2019 Transcript, Pg.34, lines 16-19.

8 Coston Testimony, 2019 Transcript, Pg.34, lines 20-21.

9 Coston Testimony, 2019 Transcript, Pg. 34, lines 7-8.

10 Coston Testimony, 2019 Transcript, Pg.34, lines 8-10.

APPENDIX C: Thematic Summary of Testimony by Panelist
c) Victims that seek assistance are being further victimized and retraumatized vis a vis the institutions 

that are supposed to help them.11

d) Police, prosecutors and evidentiary hurdles can all act as barriers to hate crime victims trying to 

navigate the criminal justice system.12

e) Many groups, including LGBT people, racial/ethnic minorities and people with disabilities do not report 

hate crimes to law enforcement because of fear of harassment.13

4. Recommendations and Best Practices 

a) Dr. Coston’s written statement addresses national and Virginia legislation focused on the legal 

response to hate crimes. 14

b) Need for research into the efficacy of law enforcement community liaison officers at reducing 

the negative experiences/impact that minorities, the LGBT community, and people with 

disabilities have as a result of law enforcement interactions. 15

c) Cultural competency training for health care providers to address the bias and insensitivity that 

hate crimes victims face in this sector. 16

d) Bias crimes require a tailored response that recognizes the long-term mental health impact of 

the crimes. 17 

i. We need to understand how to respond to the needs of hate crime victims. 18 

f) We need adequately resourced community-based resources, e.g. National Coalition of AntiViolence Programs, which serves the LGBT community, but is under-resourced. 19 

i. Rural areas may also be under-resourced, yielding decreased access to services. 20

ii. We should also be attentive to the types of resources available as they vary by type of 

hate crime such that specific services may be available for some groups while general 

victims’ services are all that is available to others. 21 

iii. Need for comprehensive post-victimization services that distinguish between the needs 

of different groups. 22

iv. Need for greater cross-sector collaboration between law enforcement, health care 

sector and community organizations to enhance services provided to victims. 23

11 Coston Testimony, 2019 Transcript, Pg.34, lines 31-33.

12 Coston Testimony, 2019 Transcript, Pg.34, lines 34-38.

13 Coston Testimony, 2019 Transcript, Pg.34, lines 38-42.

14 Coston Testimony, 2019 Transcript, Pg.34, lines 24-25.

15 Coston Testimony, 2019 Transcript, Pg.34, lines 42-43; Pg. 35, line 1. 

16 Coston Testimony, 2019 Transcript, Pg.35, lines 7-8, 10-11.

17 Coston Testimony, 2019 Transcript, Pg.34, lines 13-19.

18 Coston Testimony, 2019 Transcript, Pg.34, lines 30-31.

19 Coston Testimony, 2019 Transcript, Pg.35, lines 11-17.

20 Coston Testimony, 2019 Transcript, Pg.35, lines 17-19

21 Coston Testimony, 2019 Transcript, Pg.35, lines 19-21

22 Coston Testimony, 2019 Transcript, Pg.35, lines 22-23.

23 Coston Testimony, 2019 Transcript, Pg.35, lines 24-27.

APPENDIX C: Thematic Summary of Testimony by Panelist
g) Importance of focusing on increased/improved prevention efforts: 24

i. Community based organizations that provide victims’ services also play a vital role in 

prevention efforts, including a focus on increased tolerance and awareness.25

ii. Prejudices that underlie hate crimes can be addressed by focused intervention and 

education for youth. 26

iii. Policy and legislation that focuses on responses to hate crimes should focus on 

prevention efforts and responses to victims in addition to criminal justice system 

responses. 27 

24 Coston Testimony, 2019 Transcript, Pg.35, lines 28-30.

25 Coston Testimony, 2019 Transcript, Pg.35, lines 30-32.

26 Coston Testimony, 2019 Transcript, Pg.35, lines 33-34.

27 Coston Testimony, 2019 Transcript, Pg.35, lines 35-37.

APPENDIX C: Thematic Summary of Testimony by Panelist
Expert: Brian Johns, Executive Director, Virginia Organizing (VO), Charlottesville Branch

Drafter: Jason Brennan

Editor: Maria Almond

FINDINGS

The following findings result directly from the expert testimony presented to the Virginia Advisory 

Committee, and reflect the views of the cited panelists. While each assertion has not been 

independently verified by the Committee, panelists were chosen to testify based upon their professional 

experience, academic research, subject matter expertise, andfirsthand knowledge of the topics at hand.

1. The Testimony Does Not Establish or Concern Whether There Has Been a Statistically Significant 

Increase in Hate Crimes or Bias Incidentsin Virginia

a) Johns does not provide statistics about the incidence of hate crimes.

b) Johns’s testimony generally concerns bullying and abusive speech incidents. 1

c) Johns does not testify to the incidence or changes in incidence of these bully or speech 

incidents.

2. Description of the Nature and Type of Bias Incidents and Identifying the Targeted Groups

 

a) Johns does not offer a definition of bias. 

b) In every part of Virginia, certain people-- low income folks, people of Color, women, young 

people, LGBTQ people and others—have been traditionally and deliberately left out of the 

decision-making process. 2

c) Bias including racism, sexism, heterosexism, etc. often leads to the harassment, discrimination 

that feed hate crimes. 3

d) Johns offers examples of bias incidents his clients have experienced including: use of nooses to 

threaten black students, daily verbal abuse of students of color and students with disabilities,

harassment of college students fighting for diversity/inclusion on campus, verbal abuse by peers 

of LGBTQ students in schools, verbal abuse by police officers towards a young black male 

canvassing a neighborhood, challenges within health care systems including feeling unsafe by 

those who identify as transgender, harassment experienced by Muslims attempting to build a 

community mosque, verbal abuse and harassment of Latino communities. 

3. Legal Obstacles and Barriers to Better Law Enforcement & Prosecution of Hate Crimes 

a) Awareness of discriminatory practices towards minority groups across multiple societal 

structures including law enforcement. 

1 See Brian Johns, Testimony before the Virginia Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, March 

29, 2019, pp. 41-2.Available at: 

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1iehlA3tstU1W0Z0178sYbyZ5fjb9MgaBZ1tQ77XPG6Q/edit 2 Johns Testimony, 2019 Transcript, Pg. 41, lines 6-9. 3 Johns Testimony, 2019 Transcript, Pg. 41, lines 26-29.

APPENDIX C: Thematic Summary of Testimony by Panelist
b) Building relationships between affected communities and local decision-makers, creates an 

environment in which those communities are much more willing to report hate crimes. 4 

4. Recommendations and Best Practices

a) Virginia Organizing believes the most effective way to build power is to organize multi-issue

groups, and campaigns, locally and statewide, led by people directly affected by the issues in 

their communities. Our overall purpose is to create a statewide political force which has a 

diverse grassroots base, and deliberately includes those who have not been active before. 5

i. Use of community organizing to help communities respond to and prevent hate crimes. 

Johns discussed 2002 campaign around racial profiling in law enforcement which 

allowed for increased local relationship-building, even when initial goal of introducing 

legislation stalled. 6

b) Increase communication about effective programs statewide that can assist with institutions, 

such as schools, in addressing concerns related to bias/discrimination. 7

c) VO primarily focuses on and recommends anti-bias training and facilitating active 

communication between police and individuals in affected groups. 

i. VO offers anti-bias training to local police. 8 

ii. VO tries to build better relationships between law enforcement and affected groups by 

facilitating meetings between groups. 9

iii. VO has worked to create memoranda of understanding between school system and police

including delineating forms of funding, policies of restorative justice, and building clear 

policies for responding to incidents of discrimination and hate crimes. 10

iv. VO recommends increase in state funding for community policing, and restorative justice 

practices 11. 

4 Johns Testimony, 2019 Transcript, Pg. 43, lines 12-18; Pg. 59, lines 9-19. 5 Johns Testimony, 2019 Transcript, Pg 41, lines 10-19. 6 Johns Testimony, 2019 Transcript, Pg. 42, lines 22-41 and Pg. 43, lines 1-6. 7 Johns Testimony, 2019 Transcript, Pg. 45, lines 5-12. 8 Johns Testimony, 2019 Transcript, Pg. 43. 9 Johns Testimony, 2019 Transcript, Pg.41, lines 32-41 and Pg. 42, lines 1-18 10 Johns Testimony, 2019 Transcript, Pg. 43, lines 7-11; Pg. 47, lines 5-13. Pg. 53. 11 Johns Testimony, 2019 Transcript, Pg 43, lines 19-20.

APPENDIX C: Thematic Summary of Testimony by Panelist
EdExpert (Public Commenter): 

Hurunnessa Fariad, Head of Outreach and Interface, All Dulles Area Muslim Society (ADAMS)

Drafter: Ilya Shapiro

Editor: Ann Haney

FINDINGS

The following findings result directly from the expert testimony presented to the Virginia 

Advisory Committee, and reflect the views of the cited panelists. While each assertion has not 

been independently verified by the Committee, panelists were chosen to testify based upon their 

professional experience, academic research, subject matter expertise, and firsthand knowledge of 

the topics at hand.

1. There has been a statistically significant rise in hate crimes in Virginia

a) In addition to the high frequency of specific incidents against Muslims experienced by 

members of the All Dulles Area Muslim Society1, hate crimes against the Jewish, Sikh, 

and Hindu communities are also on the rise.2

2. Description of the Nature and Type of Hate Crimes and Identifying the Targeted Groups

a) Muslims are being verbally harassed in grocery stores, some being physically attacked. 

There are more discussions about these incidents within peer circles, but a hesitancy to 

inform law enforcement because of a perception that these things aren’tserious enough.

3 

b) The second-largest mosque in United States, here in Sterling, VA, receives regular threats 

on a regular basis; the last one [before this hearing] came by email a few days earlier. The 

biggest fear is of New Zealand-style domestic terrorism.4

c) Muslim children are verbally and physically harassed at school; some girls are forced to 

remove their hijabs because classmates pull at them. A few years earlier, the testifier’s

own daughters (15 and 13 at the time, and wearing hijabs) were verbally harassed at 

Reston Town Center by an elderly white man.5

3. Legal Obstacles and Barriers to Better Law Enforcement & Prosecution of Hate Crimes

N/A

4. Recommendations and Best Practices 

a) ADAMS is working with local public schools and law enforcement to provide sensitivity 

training for teachers and staff, educating them about the American Muslim community.6

1

 See Hurunnessa Fariad, Testimony before the Virginia Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil 

Rights, March 29, 2019, Transcript pp. 60, lines 14-20, 21-28, and 29-40. Available at: 

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1iehlA3tstU1W0Z0178sYbyZ5fjb9MgaBZ1tQ77XPG6Q/edit

2 Fariad Testimony, 2019 TranscriptPg. 61,lines 2-4. 3 Fariad Testimony, 2019 Transcript Pg. 60, lines 14-20. 4 Fariad Testimony, 2019 Transcript Pg. 60, lines 21-28. 5 Fariad Testimony, 2019 Transcript Pg. 60, lines 29-40. 6 Fariad Testimony, 2019 Transcript Pg. 61, lines 4-8.

APPENDIX C: Thematic Summary of Testimony by Panelist
1 

Expert: Jeannie Bell, Richard S. Melvin Professor of Law, Maurer School of Law, Indiana University 

Drafter: Angela Ciccolo

Editor: Maria Almond

FINDINGS

The following findings result directly from the expert testimony presented to the Virginia Advisory 

Committee, and reflect the views of the cited panelists. While each assertion has not been 

independently verified by the Committee, panelists were chosen to testify based upon their professional 

experience, academic research, subject matter expertise, and firsthand knowledge of the topics at hand.

Professor Bell was part of the National Panel and did not comment on the prevalence of hate crimes in 

Virginia. 1 

1. Description of the Nature and Type of Hate Crimes and Identifying the Targeted Groups

a. The vast majority of hate crimes are not serious offenses, but are traumatizing to victims 

nonetheless. They may be classified as low level offense crimes, such as vandalism, and as a 

result, may not be investigatedby law enforcement. 2 

b. Hate crimes often have repetitive patterns. 3

c. Victims often wait to report low level crimes until they grow more serious. Her study of 

individuals moving into white neighborhoods between 1990 and 2010 showed individual 

targets had several incidents of hate crimes directed at them before they contacted police 

or sought legal intervention. Assistance was sought after the crimes grew more serious. 4 

2. Legal Obstacles and Barriers to Better Law Enforcement & Prosecution of Hate Crimes

a. The classification of hate crimes as low-offense level crimes means they are often not 

investigated and, thus, perpetrators are not caught. 5

b. Identification of perpetrators of hate crimes is challenging due to the fact that frequently 

the perpetrator and victim have no prior relationship. 6

c. Police departments do not have a standardized method for identifying, investigating and 

responding to hate crimes. A majority of police departments have no particular approach, 

which may enable hate crimes to be underrecognized. 7 

d. Even within special investigation units, police often lack specific training in recognizing hate 

crimes and bias-motivation, so may miss important hate crime patterns, may be unfamiliar 

with specific legal concerns related to hate crimes (e.g. first amendment conflicts) or may 

ineffectively follow-up. 8 

1 Jeannie Bell Testimony, Testimony before the Virginia Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 

May 16, 2018. Transcript, Pg.14, line 11- Pg.17, line 7.Available at x 2 Bell Testimony, 2018 Transcript, Pg.14, lines 12-32. 3 Bell Testimony, 2018 Transcript, Pg. 14, lines 32-35. 4 Bell Testimony, 2018 Transcript, Pg. 14, lines 35-38and Pg. 15, lines 1-5 5 Bell Testimony, 2018 Transcript, Pg. 14, lines 18-26. 6 Bell Testimony, 2018 Transcript, Pg. 16, lines 17-21. 7 Bell Testimony, 2018 Transcript, Pg. 15, lines 15-16and 18-22. 8 Bell Testimony, 2018 Transcript, Pg 15, lines 39-41and Pg. 16, lines 1-7.

APPENDIX C: Thematic Summary of Testimony by Panelist
2 

e. Hate crime units are rare, but due to specific training and developed protocols confer the 

best protection for victims. 9

3. Recommendations and Best Practices 

a. Create and fund special investigation units in police departmentsspecifically trained to 

investigate hate crimes. 10

b. Standardize the reporting of hate crimes among police departments to uniform 

identification, investigation and responses to hate crimes. 11

c. Consider elevating the offense level of hate crimes or creating a legal structure to ensure 

that no bias-motivated crimes are overlooked due to categorization as low-level crimes. 

This will allow for better investigation, services for victims and the apprehension of 

suspects. 12

9 Bell Testimony, 2018 Transcript, Pg. 16, lines 8-16. 10 Bell Testimony, 2018 Transcript, Pg. 16, 8-10, 35-36 and Pg 17, lines 1-3 11 Bell Testimony, 2018 Transcript, Pg. 15, lines 15-16. 12 Bell Testimony, 2018 Transcript, Pg. 14, lines 27-32.

APPENDIX C: Thematic Summary of Testimony by Panelist
Expert: Professor Brian Levin, Director of the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism at 

California State University in San Bernardino, California

Drafter: Arthur Rizer

Editor: Maria Almond

FINDINGS

The following findings result directly from the expert testimony presented to the Virginia 

Advisory Committee, and reflect the views of the cited panelists. While each assertion has not 

been independently verified by the Committee, panelists were chosen to testify based upon 

their professional experience, academic research, subject matter expertise, and firsthand 

knowledge of the topics at hand.

1. There has been a statistically significant rise in hate crimes in Virginia

a. Hate crimes rose 12 percent in 38 cities and counties across the United States from 

2016 to 2017. In the ten largest cities in the U.S., hate crimes rose 12.5 percent.1

b. For the ten largest cities, the totals reported hate crimes were the highest seen in 

over a decade.2

c. Major cities have reported an annual increase in hate crimes for four consecutive 

years.3

d. Notable examples of extremely low reporting were found, which is often related to 

issues with policies, procedure, resources, and victim services.4

e. There has been a general rise in hate crimes, but they have not been across the 

board. Of the 38 jurisdictions looked at, about 54 percent reported increases. 5

f. In 2017, there were some notable declines in hate crimes. New York City’s reported 

numbers were down slightly, though it hit a year-high in 2016. Chicago’s reported 

hate crimes were also down 14 percent, though their numbers were also elevated in 

2016.6

g. The cities with the highest numbers of hate crimes were New York at 339 (down 2 

percent), Los Angeles at 254 (up 10.8 percent), Phoenix at 230 (up 33 percent), and 

Washington, DC at 179 (up 67 percent).7

h. For 2017 in Los Angeles, gay people were the most targeted group. In Chicago, 

African Americans and Jews showed equal numbers of reported hate crimes. In 

1 See Brian Levin, Testimony before the Virginia Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, May 

16, 2018, Transcript pg. 1, lines 39-42. Available at X 2 Levin Testimony, 2018 Transcript, Pg. 2, lines 5-7. 3 Levin Testimony, 2018 Transcript, Pg. 2, lines 4-5. 4 Levin Testimony, 2018 Transcript, Pg. 2, lines 13-15. 5 Levin Testimony, 2018 Transcript, Pg. 2, lines 18-20. 6 Levin Testimony, 2018 Transcript, Pg. 2, lines 1-4. 7 Levin Testimony, 2018 Transcript, Pg. 2, lines 10-12.

APPENDIX C: Thematic Summary of Testimony by Panelist
Houston, hate crimes seemed to target religious people and groups. Phoenix and 

San Antonio targeted African Americans.8

i. During the election period of 2016, there was an explosion of hate crimes across the 

U.S., with the exception of certain jurisdictions in the Midwest, like Chicago. The 

fourth quarter of 2016 saw a 25.9 percent increase in hate crimes over the previous 

fourth quarter. November 2016 was the worst since instituting systematic recordkeepingnationally in 1992.9

j. The Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism at California State University has 

seen hate crimes spike from catalytic events like terrorist attacks.10

k. Organizations and other third parties can take advantage of existing social divisions 

which may, in turn, play a role in increased hate crimes. For example, the House 

Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence released 3,500 Facebooks ads that 

were placed by the indicted Russian internet research agency, and USA Today found 

a spike in racially divisive Facebook ad placements leading up to the election. This 

may have played a role in the spike in hate crimes around this time. 11

l. Hate crimes can increase even when overall negative sentiment does not increase.12

m. Post-Charlottesville, The Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism at California 

State University they saw a fragmentation and disintegration of the Alt-Right’s ability 

to work together.13

n. There is extreme under-reporting in hate crimes. The Bureau of Justice Statistics 

estimated 208,000 hate crimes in 2015, but the FBI only had around 5,800 hate 

crimes officially reported.14

o. Many hate groups are attempting to incite violence in university settings by 

encouraging incendiary and racist advertising and speakers. Groups like Identity 

Evropa are active nationwide university campuses.15

2. Description of the Nature and Type of Hate Crimes and Identifying the Targeted Groups

a. Hate crimes vary somewhat by the demographics and individual characteristics of 

each city. For example, New York City has, by far, the highest number of anti-Semitic 

hate crimes, and is home to one in six American Jews.16

8 Levin Testimony, 2018 Transcript, Pg. 2, lines 31-34. 9 Levin Testimony, 2018 Transcript, Pg. 3, lines 4-18. 10 Levin Testimony, 2018 Transcript, Pg. 3, lines 31-32 11 Levin Testimony, 2018 Transcript, Pg. 3, lines 34-40 & pg. 4, lines 1-9. 12 Levin Testimony, 2018 Transcript, Pg. 4, lines 23-24. 13 Levin Testimony, 2018 Transcript, Pg. 4, lines 18-20. 14 Levin Testimony, 2018 Transcript, Pg. 21, lines 18-22. 15 Levin Testimony, 2018 Transcript, Pg. 22, lines 24-35. 16 Levin Testimony, 2018 Transcript, Pg. 2, lines 25-29. 

APPENDIX C: Thematic Summary of Testimony by Panelist
b. The most common type of hate crimes are in order from greatest to fewest numbers 

of documented events: anti-Black, anti-Semitic, anti-gay, and anti-Latino. These 

statistics appear to revolve around demographic dynamics.17

c. Levin found that political speech correlates to fluctuations of hate crime, at least in 

the immediate sense. For example, there were significant increases in hate crimes 

against Muslims after then candidate Trump’s Muslim ban announcement in 

December 2015, but there were significant decreases in hate crimes against Muslims 

after President Bush spoke at the Islamic Center of Washington, DC after 9/11.18

d. Fluctuations of hate crimes statistics appear to be based on factors like 

demographics, numbers of serial offenders, as well as systematic stealth influence 

from outside the US to further inflame hatred.19

e. Jews make up about 11 percent of hate crimes nationally, but they are only 2.1 

percent of the population. Hate crimes against Muslims are about 5 percent 

nationally, and they only make up 1 percent of the population.20

f. Religion directed hate crimes surpassed 20 percent in 2016, which has only 

happened a handful of times since they started collecting data. 21

g. Self-radicalization has been shown to be related to serious hate crimes such as hate 

homicide.22

3. Legal Obstacles and Barriers to Better Law Enforcement & Prosecution of Hate Crimes

a. Researchers are seeing an increase in hate incidents, which may not be categorized 

as crimes. This can make reporting complicated. Levin recommends that noncriminal data needs to be tracked by police and human relations commissions.23

b. Individuals are mixing ideologies dangerously with personal and social frustrations, 

often consuming a myriad of hatred from the internet. When such persons act out 

violently, the multiple influences make understanding the core reasoning behind the 

behaviors difficult.24

c. The risk of a cycle of retaliatory violence in hate crimes can create under reporting.25

d. False reports of hate crimes get significantly publicized, but out of the more than 

10,000 confirmed hate crimes only around 24 reports have been confirmed or 

suspected to be false.26

17 Levin Testimony, 2018 Transcript, Pg. 2, lines 35-38. 18 Levin Testimony, 2018 Transcript, Pg. 3, lines 22-31. 19 Levin Testimony, 2018 Transcript, Pg. 4, lines 30-36. 20 Levin Testimony, 2018 Transcript, Pg. 12, lines 35-36. 21 Levin Testimony, 2018 Transcript, Pg. 13, lines 1-2. 22 Levin Testimony, 2018 Transcript, Pg. 18, lines 22-26. 23 Levin Testimony, 2018 Transcript, Pg. 10, lines 30-41. 24 Levin Testimony, 2018 Transcript, Pg. 18, lines 27-30. 25 Levin Testimony, 2018 Transcript, Pg. 21, lines 18-32. 26 Levin Testimony, 2018 Transcript, Pg. 21, lines 35-37 & pg. 22, lines 1-2.

APPENDIX C: Thematic Summary of Testimony by Panelist
4. Recommendations and Best Practices 

a. Every police department needs an expert, also explained as a biased liaison officer 

by Levin, who can help handle hate crimes by being a source of knowledge and 

expertise that others may not have. This person can also be a spokesperson for the 

department in working with other government agencies, NGOs, and advocacy 

groups.27

b. Implementing model policies and procedure specifically for hate crimes is extremely 

important.28

c. Sustained infrastructure and clear leadership around hate crimes needs to be in 

place, such as hate crime task forces in the US Attorneys’ offices. Organized 

communication amongst stakeholders and other government agencies is vital.29

d. Officers need to go out into the community and become trusted and known for 

wanting to help and encouraging people to report hate crimes.30

e. Human relations commissions need to be funded throughout the state and country 

to help track data.31

f. For states or jurisdictions that have little to no reports of hate crimes, legislatures 

may want to do an audit where they speak with agencies and ask them about their 

policies and procedures. Additionally, they can do site visits and deeper dives in 

certain jurisdictions to understand why their reporting is so low. 32

27 Levin Testimony, 2018 Transcript, Pg. 10, lines 15-21. 28 Levin Testimony, 2018 Transcript, Pg. 10, lines 22-25. 29 Levin Testimony, 2018 Transcript, Pg. 11, lines 1-7. 30 Levin Testimony, 2018 Transcript, Pg. 10, lines 25-29. 31 Levin Testimony, 2018 Transcript, Pg. 10, lines 35-41. 32 Levin Testimony, 2018 Transcript, Pg. 19, lines 30-37 & pg. 20, lines 1-2.

APPENDIX C: Thematic Summary of Testimony by Panelist
Mary McCord, Professor of Law at the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection at 

Georgetown University Law Center

Drafter: Ann Haney

Editor: Maria Almond

FINDINGS

The following findings result directly from the expert testimony presented to the Virginia Advisory

Committee, and reflect the views of the cited panelists. While each assertion has not been 

independently verified by the Committee, panelists were chosen to testify based upon their professional 

experience, academic research, subject matter expertise, and firsthand knowledge of the topics at hand.

1) There has been a statistically significant increase in hate crimes or bias incidents in Virginia. 

a) A domestic terrorism counsel at the Department of Justice found that late 2016 into 2017, hate 

crimes and incidents of domestic terrorism had dramatically increased from the year before. 1 

b) The Anti-Defamation League’s data offrom 2018 found the highest number of fatalities based 

on domestic extremismwere committed that year. 2 

2) Description of the Nature and Type of Hate Crimes and Identifying the Targeted Groups

a) Domestic terrorism is a crime that is accomplished for the purpose of intimidation or coercion; 

hate crimes are motivated by a particular bias, including racial, religious, gender identity, etc.

Hate crimes and domestic terrorism can intersect but may also be wholly one or the other. 3 

b) Some federal terrorism offenses allow for prosecuting crimes based on domestic ideological 

goals particularly when weapons of mass destruction are used or when the target is a US official, 

mass transportation or US federal property. 4

c) There are increasing connections between white supremacists all over the world, and how they 

are modeling their behaviors and their tactics on each other, and on the same tactics, and 

behaviors, and recruiting tools used by terrorists who further foreign terrorist organizations.5

3) Challenges or barriers that may prevent law enforcement from addressing hate crimes

a) Federal code only covers terrorism committed by those who are acting on behalf of or in 

furtherance of the goals of a foreign terrorist organization; but will addressterrorism with 

1 McCord Testimony, 2019 Transcript, Pg. 22, lines 4-12. 2 See Mary McCord, Testimony before the Virginia Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 

March 29, 2019, Transcript Pg. 21, lines 37-40; Pg. 22, lines 1-3. Available at: 

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1iehlA3tstU1W0Z0178sYbyZ5fjb9MgaBZ1tQ77XPG6Q/edit 3 McCord Testimony, 2019 Transcript, Pg. 22, lines 8-10 and Pg. 28, lines 1-6. 4 McCord Testimony, 2019 Transcript, Pg. 7, lines 34-36. 5 McCord Testimony, 2019 Transcript, Pg. 27, lines 18-22. 

APPENDIX C: Thematic Summary of Testimony by Panelist
particular domestic ideological goals when weapons of mass destruction are involved or when 

the target is a U.S. official, mass transportation or US federal property. 6 

b) Law enforcement may be unaware of legal statues that may be used to halt the growth of 

environments in which bias motivated violence may occur. 7

c) Law enforcement has not been able to effectively utilize firearms regulations found within antiprivate militia laws, such as banning weapons from events or rallies, because of the lack of 

clarity around VA’s firearms regulation preemption statute and concern for lawsuits. This is 

despite lack of conflicting Federal prohibitions. 8 

d) The federal government has not maintained good statistics through the governmental voluntary 

reporting system—the FBI Uniform Crime Reporting Program. Reporting of hate crimes seems to 

be highly variable, leading to inaccurate and inadequate information. 9 

4) Recommendations and Best Practices

a) Prosecution plays dual roles within society. First and foremost, the criminal code ensures that 

those who commit crimes are appropriately punished. However, it may also demonstrate

societal and moral condemnation. Hate crimes and terrorism statutes exist to address the 

broader impact these acts play on our society through their hateful or intimidating messages. 

Expanding terrorism statues, which can be more content-neutral as compared to hate crimes, 

would provide an additional, powerful tool for prosecution. 10 Note:the Intent requirement 

elevates prosecutor’s burden of proof P. 8 

b) Congress should consider enacting a broader federal domestic terrorism crime law, which would 

bring more attention and resources, including data collection, to this growing threat that is very 

much on par with and exceeds, in terms of lethality and actual injury or harm to people, the 

threat from foreign terrorist organization inspired violence. 11 

i) Virginia has terrorism statue, written broadly enough that it could be used for either foreign 

terrorism cases or domestic ideological grievances. Notably, however, it has an intent 

requirement that elevates the burden of proof on the prosecutor. The federal government 

also has significantly more resources and better access to information than states 

individually. 12

ii) No recommendation to designate domestic terrorism organizations. 13

c) Legislation and other legal tools can be developed which are content neutral but which 

effectively prevent those exhibiting extremist or hate crime motivated violence from organizing 

and coming into public spaces and creating environments that are conducive to violence. For 

example, Virginia has anti-private militia laws, and anti-paramilitary activity laws that may be

used to prosecute hate crimes. 14 

6 McCord Testimony, 2019 Transcript, Pg. 7, Lines 33-36; Pg. 28, lines 7-14. 7 McCord Testimony, 2019 Transcript, Pg 16, lines 13-14. 8 McCord Testimony, 2019 Transcript, Pg 8, lines 29-42; Pg. 9, lines 1-16; Pg. 15, lines 30-35; Pg. 16, lines 1-11 and 

36-42; and Pg. 17, lines 1-2. 9 McCord Testimony, 2019 Transcript, Pg 22, lines 30-33; Pg 23, lines 1-6 and 12-14; and Pg. 32, lines 17-20. 10 McCord Testimony, 2019 Transcript, Pg. 8, lines 3-9 and Pg. 27, lines 1-12. 11 McCord Testimony, 2019 Transcript, Pg. 28, lines 15-20. 12 McCord Testimony, 2019 Transcript, Pg. 8, lines 15-28. 13 McCord Testimony, 2019 Transcript, Pg. 14, line 40 and Pg. 15, line 1-2. 14 McCord Testimony, 2019 Transcript, Pg 8, lines 29-42; Pg. 9, lines 1-16; Pg. 15, lines 30-35; Pg. 16, lines 1-11and 

36-42; andPg. 17, lines 1-2.

APPENDIX C: Thematic Summary of Testimony by Panelist
i) Increase training of local and state law enforcement regarding these legal tools in order to 

allow more proactive staunching of bias motivated crime. 15 

ii) Virginia could consider enacting a statute that bars drilling or parading with firearms in a 

public place. 16

d) Virginia should clarify in Virginia Code: Section 15.2-9-15 thatitsfirearms regulation preemption 

statute does not apply to reasonable and generally applicable regulation by local governments 

that allow them to protect public safety by prohibiting all weapons, including firearms, from 

public events where violence is expected. Currently there is lack of claritybecause the statute 

provides for court costs and expenses to be awarded against anyone who prevails in a challenge. 

Therefore, effectively it means law enforcement often has to choose between doing reasonable 

things to protect public safety at public marches and facing litigation expenses. 17

e) Law enforcement needs increased training regarding reporting guidelines, in particular 

clarification that what needs to be reported as a hate crime does not have to be something that 

is prosecuted as a hate crime.

f) Public pressure is needed to hold private social media companies accountable regarding 

Internet-based amplification of extremist ideologies and hateful speech, both of which can be 

precursors to the incitement of violence. 18 Private companies can respect First Amendment 

values while offering protections against violence. Legally they are not bound by the First 

Amendment. 19

15 McCord Testimony, 2019 Transcript, Pg. 32, lines 30-25. 16 McCord Testimony, 2019 Transcript, Pg. 9, lines 17-19; Pg 16, lines 15-21. 17 McCord Testimony, 2019 Transcript, Pg. 16, lines 28-34; Pg. 32, lines 25-29. 18 McCord Testimony, 2019 Transcript, Pg. 29, lines 23-40 and Pg. 30, lines 1-16. 19 Mc Cord Testimony, 2019 Transcript, Pg. 29, lines 23-29.

APPENDIX C: Thematic Summary of Testimony by Panelist
1 

Expert: Jack McDevitt, Dean of the College of Criminal Justice and Director of the Institute on Race and 

Justice, Northeastern University

Drafter: Arthur Rizer

Editor: Angela Ciccolo

FINDINGS

The following findings result directly from the expert testimony presented to the Virginia Advisory 

Committee, and reflect the views of the cited panelists. While each assertion has not been 

independently verified by the Committee, panelists were chosen to testify based upon their professional 

experience, academic research, subject matter expertise, and firsthand knowledge of the topics at hand.

1. National statistics show individuals targeted for hate crimes are likely to sustain different types 

of harm based on their race, ethnicity, religion or sexual orientation; and there are 4 types of 

hate crime offenders. 

a) LGBTQ and Muslim communities are most likely to face physical assault with injury. 1

b) Anti-Semitic hate crimes are mostly property crimes. 2

c) An increased use of force has been reported by police officers targeting Latinoand African 

American males. 3

d) U.S. high schools and universities have experienced an increase in hate-motivated behavior and 

are the third most frequent place where hate crimes occur. 4

e) There are 4 types of hate crime offenders: thrill offenders, defensive offenders, retaliatory 

offenders and mission offenders. 5 

f) Two thirds of hate crimes are committed by thrill offenders, one third by defensive and 

retaliatory offenders and less than 4 percent are committed by mission offenders. 6

g) There has been an increase in defensive hate crimes and a decrease in thrill crimes. 7

h) There has been a slight increase in gun use in hate crimes, while in the past, rocks, sticks and 

bats were used more often. 8

i) Reporting on hate crimes is inconsistent among the states because not all groups are covered by 

hate crime protections in some states. 9

1 Mc Devitt testimony, p. 7, paragraph3. 2 Id.

3 Mc Devitt testimony, p. 17, paragraph 5.

4 McDevitt testimony, p. 22, paragraphs 4-5. 5 McDevitt testimony, p. 5, paragraph 4 –page 7, paragraph 2. 6 McDevitt testimony, p.7, paragraph 2.

7 Id.

88 Mc Devitt testimony, p. 7, paragraphs 4-5. 9 McDevitt, p.8, paragraph 1.

APPENDIX C: Thematic Summary of Testimony by Panelist
2 

2. Description of the Nature and Type of Hate Crimes and Identifying the Targeted Groups 10

a) Muslims; 11

b) LGBTQ individuals; 12

c) Jews; 13

d) African American men; 14

e) Latinos 15

3. Legal Obstacles and Barriers to Better Law Enforcement & Prosecution of Hate Crimes

a) In some states, certain groups aren’t covered by protections against hate crimes. 16

b) Victims often fail to report the crimes because they feel nothing will come of their report and 

believe police are biased against them. 17

c) Officers don’t come across the crimes often and forget some of the typology they learn in police 

academy training. Departments don’t often have an expert in hate crimes in 

their departments. 18

4. Recommendations and Best Practices 

a) Encourage policies officers to have outreach at the local level to build trust with 

communities so that individuals have better trust in the system. 19

b) Have a trained expert in every police department help investigate hate crimes and refer 

bias crimes to the trained expert for investigation. 20 

c) Look at, and call attention to police departments that report no, or low hate crimes as 

they may be doing something wrong. 21

d) Implement a policy that has a trained hate crimes expert in every police department. 

Have these trained experts help investigate hate crimes. Ensure that the officers for 

different departments come together regularly to compare trends and to discuss 

incidents. 22

e) Encourage police departments to use social media to track hate crimes. 23 

10 See also, Section 1. 11 McDevitt testimony, p. 7. 12 Id. 13 Id. 14 McDevitt testimony, p. 17

15 Id. 16 McDevitt testimony, p. 8, paragraph 1. 17 Id. 18 McDevitt testimony, p. 19, paragraph 5.

19 McDevitt testimony, p. 8 paragraph 2-p. 9 paragraph 7. 20 McDevitttestimony, p. 9, paragraph 8. 21 McDevitt testimony, p.9, paragraph 9. 22 McDevitttestimony, p. 24, paragraph 3. 23 McDevitt testimony, p. 13, paragraphs 8-9. 

APPENDIX C: Thematic Summary of Testimony by Panelist
3 

f) Schools should create strong anti-hate policies and enforce those policies. 24

24 McDevitt testimony, P. 23, paragraph 4.

APPENDIX C: Thematic Summary of Testimony by Panelist