Frederick Brewington, civil rights attorney, hosts a discussion at Hofstra University on vigilantism’s effect on people of color. // Photo courtesy of the Hofstra Law School.
In honor of Civil Rights Day, the Center for “Race,” Culture and Social Justice, the Center for Civic Engagement and the Hofstra Cultural Center hosted a Civil Rights Day Keynote Panel on Wednesday, Feb. 16.
The panel was held to discuss the commencement of the civil rights movement, which stemmed from the creation of the 13th Amendment, the foundation of Black Codes and the KKK Act of 1871. The two guest speakers, Frederick K. Brewington, a civil rights attorney, and Mark C. Niles, a professor of law at Hofstra University, discussed vigilantism’s historical and current implications against people of color.
According to Cornell Law School, vigilantism “describes the actions of a single person or group of people who claim to enforce the law but lack the legal authority to do so.”
“I firmly believe we should not be shielded from the discomfort of our history or our present,” said Philip Dalton, professor of writing studies and rhetoric and director of the Center for Civic Engagement.
Dalton cited the killings of Trayvon Martin and Ahmaud Arbery, two Black men who were targeted by white men. Additionally, Kyle Rittenhouse, who shot three people at a racial justice protest in Kenosha, Wisconsin, was used as evidence of continued racially-motivated vigilantism in today’s society.
The panel discussion began with a historical overview of civil rights history and New York State’s civil rights laws.
“There are all kinds of issues about racial discrimination and racial violence long before we got to the Civil War,” Niles said.
“Beyond the black and white racial issues and ways in which civil rights issues have addressed things like sexual orientation and disability,” Niles said. “When we talk about civil rights, we are not just talking about race, even though that was maybe the foundation for them.”
Students found that learning about these laws gave them a better understanding of how they are being implemented.
“Seeing the specific laws that [dealt] with things that I already know generally about was useful,” said Sarah Holmes, a junior criminology and public policy major. “I think it kind of reiterates an interest in law for me because that’s where ultimately all the decisions [are] made.”
Based on the increase of hate crimes since 2019 and their association with vigilantism against people of color, Niles explained the circumstances surrounding the first hate crime laws passed in 1968, entitled USC 245 Violent Interference with Federal Protected Rights.
“Congress made it a federal crime to use force to willfully interfere with a person because of race, color, religion, national origin or because the person was participating in a federally protected activity,” Niles said.
Students at the event wondered how people within these groups can fully protect themselves legally.
“How do we fight blatant racism and islamophobia? How do we fight it in the law?” said Zainab Mozawalla, an undecided freshman, who is advocating for Eid al-Fitr to be a holiday in her home school district.
A federal hate crime is an underlying crime with the added aspect of proving that the motivation was “based on racial animus,” according to Niles. Although it is essential to have laws that address hate crimes, Niles explained that it is difficult for prosecutors to prove that a person committed a crime driven by hate for any of the notions stated above.
Brewington discussed real situations, beginning with an anecdote from a client, Mr. Benny, who was waiting outside of a bar that was closed due to a fight. When the police officers arrived, instead of approaching the individuals responsible for the fight, they advanced towards Mr. Benny’s group of friends.
The encounter resulted in Mr. Benny being body-slammed and flung onto the concrete sidewalk, causing internal and external injuries. Benny and his friends were arrested and charged with “obstructing governmental administration, resisting arrest and disorderly conduct,” according to Brewington.
Although the charges against Mr. Benny were entirely dismissed, he is left with the difficulty of proving that the officer’s actions were based on racial discrimination.
“Judges get challenged. They must be challenged. We must challenge the systems and institutions that allow the perpetuation of systemic issues,” Brewington said. “If you are not confronted with the realities that our history brings to us, you are just going to allow it to happen.”
