By David M. Greenwald
Sacramento, CA – Taking on hate crimes is one of the top priorities of the newly-appointed Attorney General, especially now with increasing numbers of attacks against the AAPI community.
In his first press conference as the new Attorney General in California, Rob Bonta announced the launch of a Racial Justice Bureau within the California Department of Justice and announced plans for a virtual convening against hate crimes with California’s Big City Mayors.
“I know we cannot back down in the face of hate,” Bonta said during a news conference Tuesday. “Throughout California’s history, too many of us have felt the sting of hate and discrimination.
“The fact is: No part of California is immune to hate. Too many Asian, Latino, Black, Native American, people with disabilities, LGBTQ, Jewish, Muslim, and Sikh Californians all across the state are hurting,” he continued. “Make no mistake, right now we are in a full-on state of crisis, a full state of emergency when it comes to violence against the Asian American Pacific Islander community.
“It’s going to take all of us working together to take on bias and hate and their toxic effects on our society. As part of that, I’m launching a Racial Justice Bureau within the California 
Department of Justice and working to help bring together many of our major local elected leaders in common cause against hate. We must recommit ourselves to doing everything we can to better serve the needs of all Californians. All of our communities deserve to be seen, to be valued, and to be protected.”
In calling for the Bureau as well as the convening, Bonta said, “We must recommit ourselves to do everything we can to serve the needs of all Californians.”
The Bureau will initially bring six new attorneys and a supervising deputy attorney general to DOJ’s Civil Rights Enforcement Section to help tackle some of California’s most pressing racial and social justice issues head on.
“We are demonstrating our commitment to address racial justice through the commitment of these resources,” Bonta explained. The attorneys will assist in their work on a broad range of civil rights and constitutional matters including work to address hate crimes.
“Addressing this challenge will require the development of affirmative strategies that employ best practices and can be implemented across jurisdictions in order to quickly and decisively prevent and respond to hate,” he said.
“These new attorneys are one of the first steps we will take to address these matters,” he said.
These attorneys will, among other things, address hate crimes and organizations, “taking on the insidious effects of white supremacy and hate organizations on our society and stepping up outreach with community organizations and law enforcement on hate crime prevention, information sharing, and reporting.”
Second, they address implicit and explicit bias in policing, “launching and supporting investigations as appropriate and recognizing the urgent need to strengthen trust between law enforcement and the communities they serve.”
Third, they will address law enforcement best practices, “issuing guidance to local law enforcement, prosecutors, and other public entities regarding shared challenges in providing for public safety.”
Fourth to address: “Campus climate issues, including conducting and supporting investigations into overly punitive, discriminatory policies where they arise and working to find innovative ways to strengthen diverse, equitable, and inclusive school environments.”
Finally, he will create a Task Force to Study and Develop Reparation Proposals for African Americans, “assisting with the implementation of the new task force as authorized under Assembly Bill 3121.”
Bonta announced that complementing these internal efforts to combat hate through the creation of the Bureau, the Attorney General will host “a virtual convening with Big City Mayors at the end of the month to help increase information sharing and work to identify new, innovative solutions for tackling shared challenges, as well as highlight existing regional resources and actionable steps that can be taken by all Californians to fight back against hate.
“Drawing on the expertise of local elected leaders, the virtual convening will seek to raise awareness around regional concerns involving hate crimes, support those who have been impacted by hate, and secure commitments for direct action across California,” Bonta said.
Big City Mayors represents the state’s 13 largest cities and more than a quarter of California’s residents. Members of the coalition include Los Angeles, San Diego, San José, San Francisco, Fresno, Sacramento, Long Beach, Oakland, Bakersfield, Anaheim, Riverside, Santa Ana, and Stockton.
“The Mayors of California’s 13 largest cities look forward to working with Attorney General Bonta to combat hate crimes and discrimination in every form,” said San José Mayor Sam Liccardo, Chair of the Big City Mayors. “It will take all of us standing up for our wonderfully diverse community members to make California a welcome home for all.”
Hate crimes are notoriously difficult to prosecute, with a high standard of proof required to demonstrate a crime was motivated by hate.
“Local law enforcement can do more to identify and investigate hate crimes,” Bonta said, noting the results of a statewide audit. “The acts that actually are hate crimes are not necessarily identified as such and investigated as such.”
He noted, “We’re missing quite a few acts of hate that could be and perhaps should be prosecuted as hate crimes.”
He vowed to support law enforcement across the state in investigating hate crimes.
Bonta also urged a broader discussion of root causes.
“The hate violence that we’re seeing now is a symptom, it’s not the root cause,” he said. “I believe that one major reason why we are where we are in this moment, is because the former occupant of the White House used the biggest megaphone on the planet to repeatedly push out messages of hate and xenophobia of cruelty and racism.”
He said, “(He) gave people permission and license to act on perhaps some of their worst instincts instead of their best. At a time when folks are hurting perhaps because of an international pandemic or an economic recession, there is, in a human condition, an inclination to blame others.”
He said, “We need leaders who will do the opposite… instead of driving wedges between each other.”
—David M. Greenwald
To sign up for our new newsletter – Everyday Injustice – https://tinyurl.com/yyultcf9
Support our work – to become a sustaining at $5 – $10- $25 per month hit the link:
Some initial comments…
I see no problem with a group dedicated to knowing how to train local DA’s as to when it is, or it is not appropriate to add “hate crime” charges… I see it good, and proactive, to engage local leaders on the ‘avoidance’ aspect… keeping the “hate” @ bay, instead of just adding punishments…
I question the focus on “… convening against hate crime with California’s Big City Mayors.” Often, the location of crimes that fit into the category are committed in the smaller jurisdictions, which tend to be less “diverse” in the first place…
I also don’t see why Bonta would not reassign experienced attorneys, rather than hire in a way that “… will initially bring six new attorneys and a supervising deputy attorney general to DOJ’s Civil Rights Enforcement Section…”… sounds like the section already exists… is this “empire building”?
I also question a lot of the highly political quotes from Bonta, like,
Yet he says,
This smells of raw politics, and ’empire building’ rather than ‘an issue that should be addressed, seriously’…
Time will tell… Bonta is “in charge”, and currently with the backing of the Governor and a majority of the Legislature… it will play out, and when it does, Bonta should either take credit, or bear the responsibility for what he does…
“I also don’t see why Bonta would not reassign experienced attorneys, rather than hire”
I suspect (but this is only a guess) that he is probably short-staffed at this point. One of the questions asked about who some of his leaders are and those positions have not been filled yet.
Political, perhaps. But also factual and necessary to understand where we are today.
Bill
Do you believe that Bonta’s claims about the impact of the words and actions of the former president are factually incorrect, or do you simply not like them being called out by an AG? I do not see a change in the direction and emphasis of a department as “empire building” and find that choice of descriptive phrase to be political in and of itself.
For example, did you speak out against increasing ICE and the border patrol under the last administration to be “empire building”? Or did you see it as necessary to the protection of the US?
All questions are asked because I do not know the answers, not to make a political point.
It’s not likely that Bonta “knows the answer”, either – but that didn’t stop him (and many others in the political sphere) from making the claim. And continuing to do so, months after Trump left office.
You keep raising the point “months after Trump left office” as though he could not have set something in motion that would continue into the future.
Politically-motivated speculation.
Some may believe, for example – that the “social justice movement” itself is responsible for it. Including the riots that occurred, the inordinate focus on skin color (creating division), promotion of terms like “white privilege”, “white fragility”, “model minority”, “cancel culture”, etc.
Or, that the actual “reporting” of incidents has “changed”.
Which would also be speculation.
Is all speculation created equal in your worldview? (In my view there is informed speculation and wild speculation).
As I explained to Bill, I happen to believe that the AG is correct in part – we will not solve this without addressing root causes and disagree in part – not believing that prosecuting hate crimes as hate crimes is the right approach here.
Ron O (to David G’s earlier question)… a guy named Bill Shakespeare was a pretty good judge of human nature, and a ‘speculative’ quote he attributed to one of his characters, in Julius Caesar, includes, “the evil men do lives after them; the good is oft interred with their bones”…
In government, as in physics, ‘momentum’ (aka, inertia) is a force to be reckoned with…
You may think that was a clever play on my post. But all of my questions were addressed to specific points made by a specific poster here, namely Bill. I asked questions about his opinion, not an objective finding or policy.
This you tried to parlay into questions about the policy itself. I am quite sure that Bonta has more objective information on previous law and policy, and those of other jurisdictions than any of us posting here. You may not agree with his assessments, but that was not the focus of any of my questions.
Assuming that was addressed to me – not at all, nor was I referring to any policy.
I don’t believe that there’s much “informed” (or “wild”) speculation to be found on here. Mostly, I see politically-motivated speculation.
Not sure what that means, in regard to how it’s worded.
But, I would note that you apparently believe it’s appropriate to report crimes as “hate crimes”, even when your “preferred prosecutor” does not believe that there’s sufficient evidence to do so, at this point.
I also believe that there’s political motivation at play, in regard to the overall effort to pursue (actual) hate crime charges. Not just limited to this example. But you can label that “wild speculation”, if you’d like. 🙂
This might (already) be my 5th comment.
To which I pose the question, “Should the CA AG be focused on doing what is ‘right’, or doing what is ‘politically correct’, potentially for his own ‘aggrandizement’/political ambitions?”
So, will answer the first part of your question… no, I do believe that the former President, and many other Republicans (but far from all) have been, and some still are, “playing to the electorate”, so the statement is factually correct, but the former president was coach/cheerleader for a team of jerks who want other jerks to re-elect them.
So, my second question, “Do you believe in “tit for tat”?
Third, is Bonta “playing to his electorate”, or is he only motivated by ‘doing what is right’, and being a professional? the latter is what I expect the AG to do, although the history in CA of AG’s becoming Governor, Vice President, members of the Federal Cabinet (although, NOT in the role of AG!), would suggest that the CA AG office is far more governed by politics than professionalism.
Let me ask you this question Bill – the point that Bonta was actually making was that we cannot address this without getting to the root of the problem. He addressed what he believed to be the root of the problem. If he’s right – isn’t that kind of important? (BTW, I happen to agree with his assessment here). (BTW as well, I don’t happen to agree with him on the need or desire to charge a bunch of hate crime enhancements as an approach to addressing this problem).
The root of the problem is not that the president was bad, but that the system itself was bad for having such power position. The root of the problem was the concept of having president.
Bonta was not correct. He could have left out that part and just said, “I need more people who can connect people and build community, therefore I will create a scholarship to award people working to those ends.”
The design problem of hate crime is that it potentially weaponizes “witch hunting”. It creates an incentive for people to make others appear more evil than they actually are in order to induce a bigger punishment or compensation. These mechanisms anchor on having someone to blame.
The alternate policy decide focus on healing. You reward people who are healing and helping people. The compensation is not related to proving any guilt. If you do good you are rewarded. The society does not need to find anyone to blame for the wheel to turn.
I suspect politically-motivated wild speculation is what ‘other’ does when they speculate. But I’m only speculating 😐