EDITORIAL: Hate crimes bill takes patience, says Indiana legislator

To prove it, she authored a bill that would allow extra punishment for people who commit hate crimes in Indiana.

Glick, herself, must be among the most tolerant — and patient — of Hoosier legislators.

She shows it by reacting calmly after a House of Representatives committee chairman killed her bill recently — even though it passed the Indiana Senate by a 34-16 vote.

Even the most open-minded Hoosiers might have a hard time holding our tongues after that.

“I’m disappointed, but I understand the legislative process,” Glick said.

The chairman claimed his committee did not have time to discuss Glick’s bill, with the rush to finish this year’s session of the Legislature by March 10.

It would be easy to accuse the chairman of making a flimsy excuse, especially since the Associated Press reports that he had expressed opposition to Glick’s bill.

“I’m not going to second-guess the chairman of the committee,” Glick said. “He knows his committee, he knows his House better than I do.”

In the same week that a single legislator killed Glick’s bill, someone committed exactly the kind of horrific crime it was designed to punish.

In Nashville, Indiana, on Feb. 18, a 59-year-old man allegedly attacked an 18-year-old exchange student from China with a hatchet while she was touring the scenic town with a school group. News reports said the attacker told police he was attempting to “perpetuate ethnic cleansing” and that he “hates these people,” referring to the Chinese.

A prosecutor could not have had an easier time proving a hate crime occurred.

“It doesn’t say much for Hoosiers, and it doesn’t say much for Americans,” Glick said about the Nashville incident. “I think we’re better than that as a people.”

A person might think Indiana legislators would be eager to agree.

Glick’s bill would not have created a new class of hate crimes. It would have allowed courts to add extra punishment if judges or juries determined that crimes were motivated by hate.

“That’s what the judges are saying they’re OK with. That’s what the prosecutors would like to have,” Glick said.

Some people saw Glick’s bill as a sort of consolation prize for people who think Indiana should extend civil rights protection to Hoosiers who are gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender. If we can’t give them civil rights, at least we shouldn’t hit them with hatchets.

But Glick wants no part of that divisive discussion.

“There are a lot of people who are afraid it will turn into a discussion of LGBT rights. That’s not the intent of this bill,” she said.

But her bill would have allowed judges to impose longer sentences for people who commit crimes motivated by “race, religion, color, sex, gender identity, disability, national origin, ancestry or sexual orientation.” By including the terms gender identity and sexual orientation, Glick risked running into opposition.

Glick’s bill would not have started a flood of hate-crime prosecution. The Associated Press reports that state police have counted 45-55 incidents per year since 2011 that would qualify as hate crimes.

Glick was not exactly pushing a revolutionary idea. AP says 45 other states have laws against hate crimes.

In a further show of tolerance, Glick’s bill had both Republicans and Democrats as co-sponsors. Her co-author was Sen. Earline Rogers, a Democrat from Gary, who has tried to pass similar laws in the past. Rogers is retiring from the Senate this year, and Glick had hoped Rogers could see one of her goals achieved.

There’s still a chance that Glick’s bill might be resurrected as an amendment in the Legislature’s convoluted process. It’s more likely that Rogers will have to adopt Glick’s attitude of patience.

“We got the dialogue started. We’ve got people thinking about it,” Glick said about her legislative colleagues. “Sometimes it’s better that they take their time and work these things through their minds. If we start that dialogue, I think we’ll accomplish something over time.”

An AP story quoted Glick as saying, “It’s really unfair for the state as a whole to be labeled as bigots, because we are really not.”

It would be tempting to add, “… except for some Indiana legislators.”

But Glick sets a better example. We’ll adopt her view that we should give Indiana legislators time to warm up to an idea.

Even if the idea is this obvious: It’s not OK to hit a teenage Chinese girl with a hatchet.