Special to the Vanguard
Davis, CA – The City of Davis, Yolo County and UC Davis have partnered to create Hate-Free Together, a community-wide framework to combat the recent string of local hate incidents and prioritize the well-being and safety of all residents.
The joint effort, unveiled last night (Nov. 30) during the 2x2x2 committee’s annual town and gown meeting, will begin in 2023.
Just as these three public agencies successfully came together for Healthy Davis and Healthy Yolo Together, they are now advancing Hate-Free Together, a movement that will invite the entire community to help condemn hate, create safety and cultivate change, and encourage an environment that promotes inclusiveness, celebrates diversity and rejects hate and bias in all forms.
The City, County and UC Davis signed a joint resolution last night declaring our 
community Hate-Free Together.
“We are all deeply troubled by the rise in high profile local hate incidents. We are inviting the community to help us identify specific actions within the Hate-Free Together framework,” said Yolo County Supervisor Don Saylor. “Hate incidents affect us all and we all have a role to play in this fight.”
“The partnerships we harnessed to great effect during the pandemic taught us that we are all stronger together,” said UC Davis Chancellor Gary S. May. “In this case, rather than COVID-19 being the virus, hate is the virus we’re trying to eradicate. We intend to use our collective power to condemn violence and bigotry in all forms.”
“Hate is a cycle that can be broken if we cultivate change, prioritize education and stand up together,” said City of Davis Mayor Lucas Frerichs. “We ask the entire community to join us in this fight and learn how we can all work to become Hate-Free Together.”
The campaign will include three spheres, or audiences: individuals, public agencies and businesses. These spheres will also include schools, religious institutions, nonprofits and many other groups. Each sphere will be invited to community workshops starting in 2023 to share what change they would like to see in the community and target key actions. In addition, a website is forthcoming with local training, educational resources and instructions on how to report hate crimes across jurisdictions. Additional details on the framework and outcomes will be shared at a future date.
Here are the comments I made in the sign-up form: “To perform this task, find one or a collection of grassroots social justice organizations in the region – unaffiliated with any elected official – and give them all the money and donated venues possible and then stay out of it.”
Isn’t this the job of police departments, after reporting it to them directly? (Not hate “incidents”, but hate “crimes”?) (Seems like a lot of people don’t understand the difference between these two. Will the “framework” help them understand the difference?)
What exactly is the point of all of this? Is it so that “good people” (and “good politicians”) can feel “good” about themselves? Whether or not they actually fit that description, the people participating in this type of thing aren’t committing hate crimes (or incidents) in the first place.
Are they using public funds to create this? If so, how much – and what is the source? (Not necessarily a question for you.)
I sort of “hate” efforts like this, as it seems meaningless and is not likely to change those committing hate crimes (or “incidents”) in the first place. In fact, it might have the opposite effect.
UCD (of all places) should be helping to ensure that free speech is not trampled-upon, illegally. Even “hate” speech. (That’s what the ACLU “used to” protect.)
Also, what (exactly) does the following mean – legally?
Seems to me that a particular religious congregation in Davis crossed that line a couple of years ago. And yet, generated “support” (in a sense) from some on the council.
I don’t know why politicians feel a need to interfere in any of this.
Then again, some of those same folks were also subsequently involved in a recall of a school board member because some didn’t like her skin color. (And they admitted it, no less.) I might even categorize that as a “hate incident”, if I cared more about it. 🙂
But make no mistake – it’s troubling “incident”, as is what appears to be a double-standard regarding “hate incidents”.
Ron:
About the City and partners delegating this to another org: The other agency has agency to decide what it can do to help, even to say it can’t, can’t based on this problematic framework.
I don’t believe that the resolution has any legal basis, and it’s not meant to.
There was some combination of mistakes and misunderstandings at the Islamic Center or one of its key staff perhaps five years ago: I don’t believe it’s an issue anymore, people are forgiven, friends… whatever. I don’t believe that there’s any reason to bring it up. I have never ever felt threatened by any member of the Islamic community in Davis, and I don’t think that anyone need worry about anything tangentially-related except some confused, warmongering Zionists.
I feel that it’s important that the people on the DJUSD represent as best as possible the ethnic and racial diversity of our city and primary/secondary school population.
One thing you left out is the horrific cursive font used in the graphic announcement of this initiative.
Thanks, but if there’s any use of public funds (as you seem to imply), it’s not discussed in the article. In fact, what it actually “consists of” isn’t really detailed in the article.
It seems to be a form of “virtue signaling”, though I’m not sure if UCD has the ability to take disciplinary (or other) action to ban what it determines to be “hate speech” on campus.
I don’t believe that the city has any legal ability to ban “hate incidents” – much as some seem to want to grant them that authority.
I recall it being much more significant than that.
I’m quite certain that it’s still an issue in a “broader” sense between these two groups (for lack of a better word). It goes well-beyond Davis.
If anything “qualifies” as a “hate incident”, that one did. And yet, it generated (let’s just call it) a “different” reaction from some local leaders, compared to what would happen if (for lack of a better word) a “white supremacist” made those comments.
That’s the reason I brought it up.
Can’t help but think of Kanye West (and how the town would react), despite his skin color. (But the reaction would be far, far worse if he was white.)
Why the double (and sometimes triple) standard?
How you “individually” feel is not the measurement that is being used to determine what “hate speech” (or “hate incidents”) are, by those “in charge” of making those decisions. Some of the factors that “they” use include the skin color of the “perpetrators” and “victims”. (Based upon “who” they view as “systemic victims” and “systemic perpetrators” in the first place.)
Personally, I’ve never voted for anyone who touts their skin color as a “qualifying factor”, and I’m disgusted by anyone who does. This should be soundly denounced for what it is – not encouraged.
In any case, is that a reason to recall someone – based upon the color of their skin? (There’s a word for this – why are some reluctant to call it what it is?)
The biggest problem with this type of thing is that it may incentivize those who instigate “hate incidents” in the first place. Part of the (and maybe even the primary) reason they do so is to generate “attention”. I don’t think that hanging banners over the freeway, for example, is doing much more than that.
But hey, maybe it all makes for great entertainment? (The “incident”, but even more so – the predictable “reaction”?)
I hadn’t noticed this part of your quote, previously. I believe its an indication that you have “internalized” a politically-based view regarding “which side” consists of “systemic victims”, vs. which side consists of “systemic perpetrators”.
And interestingly-enough, it’s usually those who belong to the so-called “systemic perpetrators” group who buy-into this view. (At least, in some political circles.)
As far as “diversity” on school boards, true diversity would include some who don’t believe that city planning should revolve around an oversized school district’s failure to address the problems it’s creating for itself – and for the community at large. (Regardless of their individual skin color, gender, etc.)
In other words, for diversity that actually “matters”, local school boards are almost ALWAYS non-diverse – regardless of skin color.
I’d argue that Davis’ city council is also not very diverse, regarding their views toward issues that matter.
Why don’t you run if you feel your view isn’t being represented.
I may, in fact – run for political office (if qualified to do so) at some point. It is a public service, and I would view it that way. (In other words, you’re supposed to represent ALL – including those you disagree with, and those from a variety of backgrounds.)
As such, serving in that capacity is at least somewhat different than engaging in advocacy.
I might even show up for staged “feel good” declarations that might be “expected”, though it would be difficult for me to take them entirely seriously. (I won’t be “kissing any babies”, however. Of course these days, you might go to prison for that.)
But while doing so, I might remind others regarding what “free speech” means, and discourage others from engaging in violence to shut it down. (That part, I take seriously. I do wish that the current crop of leaders would do so, as well.)
I’m proud of our local leaders. They’re doing exactly what they should be doing. Calling out disrespectful and hateful speech. Chancellor May in particular has been doing a pitch perfect job of continuously condemning such activity and setting an example of true leadership in plain view of the entire community.
As long as he doesn’t take action to shut down what he views as “hate speech” at a public university, I have no problem with him engaging in virtue signaling.
Though a true leader would also remind all of those on campus what “free speech” actually means, and the right of citizens to engage in it without interference – including violence.
Of all of the places/venues in the country, universities are supposed to be bastions of free speech. (Seems that most of them are moving in the opposite direction.)
Now, if someone actually engages in or encourages violence, that’s a different matter (as you already know). And that’s what law enforcement is for, regardless of any nonsensical, duplicative “framework” that’s subsequently created outside of that system.
Of course, police departments (especially chiefs) are not immune to political pressure, either.