I was saddened today while reading the Daily Campus’s Op/Ed written by Daniel Whittle. Now, while I am one of a very set mind, I am always willing to hear other’s opinions and viewpoints. That is the beauty of a democracy, the privilege to have a say. What I read, however, was not the intelligent writings of a learned mind but the personal espousing of one person. On Daniel’s statement that murderers “should be rewarded the full consequences of the law” I fully agree. However he doesn’t seem to understand that the reason that hate-crime laws were enacted was to deter prejudice. If someone has in mind to kill a person because of their race, sex or sexual orientation then, because of hate-crime laws, they will think twice before they decide go through with their devious acts. As an African-American female I personally am grateful for this statute.

For Daniel to say that neither the James Byrd nor the Matthew Sheppard case had anything to do with race or sexual orientation is just ignorance on his part. Was he in the mind of the killers? Did he sit, a fly on the wall, as they planned their heinous and callous crimes? How can he make this statement, other than to further support his biased argument?

I’m also quite sure that Mr. Whittle offended several people with his asinine comment that those who are proponents of hate-crime law are weak and require protection. How dare he demean people for wanting protection under the law? When did wanting to feel safe as a minority, woman or gay become a “weakness”? Hate-crime laws are in no way, shape or form the human equivalent of “the endangered species program”. For one, thank God blacks, Latinos, Asians and homosexuals are not close to being wiped off the face of the earth though if everyone thought such like Daniel Whittle they may well be. Second, killing an animal is nothing like killing a human. Not even remotely close. There is no price great enough that one could suffer for taking the life of any living, breathing person and it is ludicrous to try to relate the two programs.

As to him taking “personal offense” to the laws, suck it up and move on. This is America; we are going to have laws that you aren’t going to like. As a straight white male he should be looking to his “brothers” who are in power and instead questioning them on their decisions instead of painting civil rights proponents as weak, lazy and powerless for wanting the protection that he takes for granted.