By Michael Leppert
michaelleppert.com

Fort Wayne’s La’Kysha Gardner testified before a Senate Committee at the Indiana Statehouse on Tuesday morning. She had a compelling story to tell about an assault on her son, Jason, and what appears to be an under-reaction to it by Allen Superior Court.

Gardner explained to the Senate Corrections and Criminal Law Committee that the assault was racially motivated and that it was a clear example of a hate or bias crime. The committee was considering Senate Bill 418, which is legislation designed to create sentencing aggravators in crimes that occur with an element of bias.  One would think she was there to testify in support of the bill.  But not so.

“I oppose this bill because it’s just not enough,” Gardner said. Many could argue that she has a point. At least as it pertains to the crime against her son.

I wish that was the dilemma that the General Assembly is facing, but it’s not.  The legislature is not struggling with whether passing Senate Bill 418 goes far enough. They are struggling over whether they should do anything on the topic at all.

The bill’s author, Sen. Sue Glick, R-LaGrange, has filed a similar version of the bill three consecutive years. I remember in 2016 with regard to her first bill, when she said something remarkably simple about the whole thing. She said, “this is something we can do.”

Yes. It is.

So what does it do? The bill would allow for judges to consider the element of bias in the commission of a crime as an aggravating factor at sentencing. That means that if someone is convicted of a Class A misdemeanor, a judge could consider the element of bias through a preponderance of evidence presented when issuing the sentence. The sentence would still need to stay within the statutory sentencing guidelines of Class A misdemeanors.

This “aggravator” can be used if the crime was committed “with the intent to harm or intimidate an individual because of the individual’s perceived or actual” characteristics. The characteristics listed are ones you would expect: race, religion, color, sex, gender identity, disability, national origin, ancestry, sexual orientation, or ethnicity.

There are no new crimes being established. There are no “thought police” being created. It does not favor whites over blacks, gays over straights, or Jews over Christians. It simply allows a prosecutor to argue, after a conviction, that the sentence should consider bias as an element in any direction within the items on the list.

SB 418 is not a panacea perfectly designed to eradicate hate-based crime from our state. There is no such legislative idea available. While I appreciate the enormity of what Gardner and her family have experienced in the last year, no new law will erase it. Or prevent it from happening again.

I wish there was such an idea.

As Glick said two years ago, what is being proposed is something we can do.  Maybe it’s a baby step, or maybe it’s “half a loaf.”  But there are some other small measures on big issues in my career that come to mind as transformational.

I think of smoking bans that did not include casinos.  I actually quit smoking the very month that Indianapolis’ local ban went into effect. Did it help me quit smoking?  Absolutely it did.

Last year, the General Assembly was being lobbied to spend $100 million dollars on pre-kindergarten expansion in its biennial budget. They only coughed up $44 million. Will it help?  Absolutely it will.

I have this debate with guns rights people all of the time. I do not believe there is a law that will end gun violence in America. But I do believe there are things we can do to make progress toward that goal.  Doing nothing is the most offensive strategy available because the status quo is intolerable.

But Gardner also said in her testimony: “I am a Hoosier but I wish that I wasn’t.” I found myself nodding in the chairs behind her when she said it.  I agree the justice system in Indiana did not treat her family right. But I disagree that killing SB 418 is the answer to our state’s shortcomings.

SB 418 is something we can do.

It would be an embarrassment to still be one of five states without a bias crime law when this session ends in March. We might be one of four if Georgia passes a bill that is pending in their statehouse.

Though it may not be enough for La’Kysha and Jason Gardner, passing this law using the momentum of the injustice they have experienced will make many of us glad they are Hoosiers.

Finding a way to convince them to stay here is also something I think we can do. We all should try.

Footnote: Michael Leppert is a public and governmental affairs consultant in Indianapolis and writes his thoughts about politics, government and anything else that strikes him at Contrariana.com.

Posted by the City county observer without opinion, bias or editing.

By Erica Irish
TheStatehouseFile.com

 INDIANAPOLIS — Anu Nattam, editor-in-chief of Plainfield High School’s news magazine, told the House Education Committee Thursday that her staff, for the first time in 20 years, is facing censorship by the school’s administration.

After publishing the first issue of the year, “Plainfield High School’s Dating Survival Guide,” Nattam said there was immediate and unexpected negativity from school leaders.

The current name of the publication — The Shakeout — was not chosen by the staff. After their first issue in October, their principal noted that its original name — The Shakedown — had mafia connotations. He soon ordered them to find a new title.

“So far, they’ve made pretty minor changes,” Nattam said. “But it’s going to be like a snowball effect. If they’re changing this now, what are they going to change later?”

Though Nattam does not plan on becoming a professional journalist, she said her work still deserves the necessary freedom to capture the truth in student life.

That is why she and dozens of students from Indiana high schools traveled to the Statehouse Thursday to hear and testify on House Bill 1016, authored by Rep. Ed Clere, R-New Albany.

HB 1016, which passed out of the committee by a 9-2 vote, would require administrators and student media advisers to set guidelines for student journalists and their publications.

“This legislation leaves school officials with a high level of control. School officials hire the teachers and make the rules,” Clere said. “All this does is help ensure when students and teachers play by the rules, the important speech will not be censored just because it makes government officials uncomfortable because of the information or topics presented.”

Clere said student journalists have a special importance to a school community in that they can capture the truth in the experiences of their peers.

In The Shakeout‘s first issue, Nattam said some of these important issues included LGBTQ+ interests, dating violence and how to find a lasting relationship.

“There was really nothing unlawful in that issue,” Nattam said. “But, because a school board member felt uncomfortable about it, now we are under prior review and have to show everything we publish to administrators, people who have no experience in journalism.”

Plainfield Community Schools declined to comment on Nattam’s testimony.

Rep. Jim Lucas, R-Seymour, told Nattam to be proud of defending her constitutional rights.

“I take it the reason you’re up here is that you’re upset your constitutional rights are being infringed,” Lucas said. “It’s good to see you and so many people up here fighting for your constitutional rights.”

Dr. J.T. Coopman, executive director of the Indiana Association of Public Schools, offered a different perspective.

“School-sponsored publications are a public relations tool, but without the guidance and oversight from the administration, a school-sponsored publication can become a public relations nightmare,” Coopman said.

Lisa Tanselle, general counsel for the Indiana School Boards Association, echoed claims made by other organizations, saying a student’s rights should be limited because there are “alternative avenues” for voicing concerns to an administration, such as through social media.

“We are talking about a balancing act,” Tanselle said. “No right is pure. The court has already struck that balance between the right of a student and the right of a school administrator.”

Of the school representatives who testified, some said there is a harmonious relationship between administrators and student media in their schools.

David Clark, the principal of Columbus North High School, said journalism programs can only thrive with a trusting administration.

“Everyone believes that students should be responsible, so let’s create an environment where they can learn to do just that. Shouldn’t we proactively educate by creating an environment of thoughtfulness and trust? It works,” he said.

Though only two members voted against HB 1016, several who voted yes raised concerns.

Rep. Sheila Klinker, D-Lafayette, and Rep. Jack Jordan, R-Bremen, both said they wanted to see more clarification in the bill’s language. Klinker proposed amending the bill to gain more support from administrators currently in opposition to HB 1016.

Rep. Woody Burton, R-Whiteland, and Rep. Tony Cook, R-Cicero, voted no.

While Cook voted yes on last year’s version of the bill, he changed his vote this session after saying HB 1016 does not do enough to unite administrators and student media.

Last session, the bill’s predecessor passed in both the House Education Committee and in the House. It later died in the Senate.

Clere said that HB 1016 is especially relevant this session. The Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier decision turns 30 this month, signaling a decades-long run for the landmark case that put high school journalism under a different set of rules.

For Clare, the consequences of the Hazelwood decision deprive student journalists of a rigorous, real-world environment.

“The stronger the censorship, the weaker the education,” Clere said.

FOOTNOTE: Erica Irish is a reporter for TheStatehouseFile.com, a news website powered by Franklin College journalism students.