The Daily Signal - Hidden Agenda in Left’s New Hate Crime Bill

Starting point is 00:00:00 Snap up Ancestry DNA's lowest price ever in our incredible cyber sale. With 50% off Ancestry DNA kits, it's the perfect time to help a loved one unwrap the past. And with their latest update, they'll discover their family origins like never before. With even more precise regions and new and exclusive features. Their best gift, our lowest price. 50% off Ancestry DNA, only until December 2nd. Visit Ancestry.ca for more details. Terms apply.

Starting point is 00:00:36 This is the Daily Signal podcast for Thursday, April 22nd. I'm Virginia Allen. And I'm Doug Blair. Democrats have introduced a new bill to stop hate crimes against Asian Americans, but that is not all the legislation does. Sarah Partial Perry, a legal fellow at the Heritage Foundation, says the COVID-19 Hate Crimes Act furthers the left's gender identity agenda and bears a strong resemblance to aspects of the Equality Act.

Starting point is 00:01:05 Perry joins the show. today to explain what exactly is in this legislation. She also shares some good news about a recent federal court victory for free speech on college campuses. And don't forget, if you're enjoying this podcast, please be sure to leave a review or a five-star rating on Apple Podcasts and encourage others to subscribe. Now, on to our top stories. The Department of Justice is opening an investigation into Minneapolis's policing practices. U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland, made the announcement on Wednesday morning. The news of the investigation comes less than 24 hours after a jury found former police officer

Starting point is 00:01:51 Derek Chauvin guilty of two murder charges and a charge of manslaughter in the death of George Floyd. Garland said that Tuesday's jury verdict in the state criminal trial does not address potentially systemic policing issues in Minneapolis. Members of Minneapolis City Council said in a statement posted on Twitter that they are in support of the investigation, writing, We welcome the opportunity for the Department of Justice to use the full weight of its authority to hold the Minneapolis Police Department accountable for any and all abuses of power. House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy criticized House Democrats on Wednesday for failing to condemn

Starting point is 00:02:34 Congresswoman Maxine Waters of California over her statements last Saturday about the since-resolved trial of Officer Derek Chauvin. Waters came under fire for comments that were perceived as inciting violence, including that she hoped for a guilty verdict and urging protesters to get more confrontational. McCarthy had introduced a measure on Tuesday to censure Waters over her comments, but the House voted to table the resolution 216 to 210 after a party-line vote. Here's McCarthy per Fox News. Every Democrat and Speaker Pelosi had the opportunity to condemn this violent rhetoric.

Starting point is 00:03:10 Instead, they condoned it, which only makes the House of Representatives and the Justice Department weaker. President Joe Biden is encouraging workplaces to offer paid time off for employees to get the COVID-19 vaccine or to recover from having had the vaccine. As an incentive, Biden says the government will provide a tax credit to businesses with fewer than 500 employees to help offset the cost of paying employees while they are. are away from work to receive the vaccine. The credit will give businesses up to $511 a day for up to 10 days or 80 hours of work between April 1st and April 30th of this year. As of Monday, the COVID-19 vaccine is now available for anyone over the age of 16. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Starting point is 00:04:02 report that now about 3 million vaccine shots are being administered to Americans every day. Now stay tuned for my conversation with Sarah Partial Perry, a legal fellow at the Heritage Foundation, as we discuss what is really in the Democrats' new COVID-19 hate crimes bill. We're all guilty of it, spending too much time watching silly videos on the internet. But it's 2021. Maybe it's time for a change. At the Heritage Foundation YouTube channel, you'll find videos that both entertain and educate, including virtual events featuring the biggest names in American politics, original explainers and documentaries, and heritage experts diving deep on topics like election integrity, China, and other threats to our democracy. All brought to you by the nation's most broadly supported Public Policy Research Institute.

Starting point is 00:05:06 Start watching now at heritage.org slash YouTube. And don't forget to subscribe and share. I am so pleased to be joined by Sarah Partial Perry, a legal fellow in the Edwin Meese, the Third Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at the Heritage Foundation. Sarah, welcome to the show. Thanks for having me, Virginia. Well, we have a great lineup today of really important issues to discuss. And I want to start with an article that you just recently published for the Washington Examiner titled Senate Democrats play hide the ball with new. hate crime bill. In the piece, you discuss how Hawaii Democrat Senator Maisie Hirono's new bill, the COVID-19 hate crime act, really how, what is included in that bill and what that bill

Starting point is 00:06:00 means. So just begin by telling us what exactly the goal of this legislation is. Well, ostensibly, it's directed at hate crimes against Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders. And understandably, Maisie Hirono from Hawaii, someone who is from that dissent herself, she's sort of increasingly concerned with the reported incidents in hate crimes against this group of American citizens. However, the problem is sort of twofold with this bill. First, it is entirely duplicative of what we have already on the books. There are at least four federal laws that prevent these kinds of hate crimes from taking place. There is a reporting system at the federal level that is specifically designed to address hate crimes based on race

Starting point is 00:06:57 and nationality. And also all but three states in the country have their own local and state level hate crimes laws, particularly in California and New York, which, if you go to the Department of Justice website, you'll see that the incidents correlate with sort of increasing hate crime statistics against Asian Americans in those two states, in the coastal states of New York and California. And their states actually have some of the most robust anti-hate crime legislation on the book. So the first problem is that it ultimately just does more than we need government to do by duplicating and appointing another government bureaucrat to handle a situation that's already being handled by the government machinery.

Starting point is 00:07:53 So then what is the motivation that Maisie Hirono seems to have in presenting this bill if we already have legislation in place that prevents these types of hate crimes? Well, you know, I titled the op-ed hiding the ball. And ultimately, sort of the MO, the political MO for the left these days, seems to be the issue of SOGY protection, sexual orientation, and gender identity. And not surprisingly, the bill itself contains language with these explicit protections and their interrelations to COVID-19. Now, laughably, that's a connection. I don't think anyone in their right mind would make. The connection between COVID-19 and, for example, gender identity. I do think it's another way for the Democrats in the Senate to be able to shoehorn through an interpretation and an adaptation of federal law that includes gender identity as a protected class. You know, Bostock, the decision that everyone remembers from 2020 had a lot of fallout. This was a decision in which Justice Gorsuch made clear specifically that biological sex was still the determining factor in

Starting point is 00:09:13 federal law. But because biological sex naturally implicated sexual orientation and gender identity, you couldn't take those into account without taking into account biological sex. I think Senate Democrats and House Democrats have really sort of jumped the ball on this and they've tried to fast forward to the end by instituting Soji protections in just about every piece of legislation that's up for grabs. So then what are the implications if the COVID-19 Hate Crimes Act passes through the Senate, through the House and is signed into law and, you know, like you say, kind of has these other aspects that extend into gender identity and, you know, goes beyond really just discrimination on, things around COVID-19. What are those broader implications? Well, right now, what it does is it

Starting point is 00:10:11 appoints a separate individual at the Department of Justice to track these types of specific hate crimes, again, ostensibly geared toward Asian Americans, but inclusive of all of these other classes. So it includes sort of a separate piece of working in the federal government to track these specific hate crimes. But what's currently at issue right now is the fact that Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer has just announced that the bill is going to move forward this week. And within this movement, there is a proposed legislative amendment to take away the connection to COVID-19, which makes you ask the question. Well, then why in the first place are we even introducing the legislation? If COVID-19 was the

Starting point is 00:11:00 alleged hook to be able to institute this type of a hate crime bill and its relationship to Asian Americans if you eliminate COVID-19 and we're already protected by federal hate crimes laws for issues of race and to national origin. It sort of is a duplicative bill itself, but what we know would take place is that there would be federal hate crime protections for gender identity or perceived gender identity within federal law. That's a very big deal. And we'd have somebody to track these types of hate crimes at the Department of Justice going forward. So correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like this bill contains a lot of elements of the highly controversial Equality Act. Absolutely. I think what the Senate Dems are doing right now is they are trying to pad their win

Starting point is 00:11:55 on what they perceived to be the Equality Act's chances. And again, still waiting on a vote for the Equality Act. We've got some maybe some GOP senators who are more moderate, who haven't indicated one way or another, what they think about the religious protections in the Equality Act or the lack thereof. And so I think Masey Horano sees this as an opportunity to cut to the chase on some of these SOGY protections when, in fact,

Starting point is 00:12:21 we've already got all of the federal laws and all the state laws that issue these types of protections already. But I 100% agree, Virginia. I think this is an attempt to sort of make sure that if the Equality Act doesn't pass, we have at least some kind of a mechanism to be able to prevent hate crimes on the basis of or purported basis of gender identity. So as you mentioned, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer has said he's going to bring this bill forward for a vote on the Senate floor.

Starting point is 00:12:53 So what do we expect to happen next? This is a partisan bill. No Republicans have come out in support of the COVID-19 Hate Crimes Act. What do you think this debate is going to look like? Well, it's hard to say. I do know that Republicans have offered amendments. Of course, we don't hear anything about those amendments because if you believe other media outlets, they're only covering the Democratic amendments, which have been introduced. And ultimately, one of those amendments would remove the COVID-19. language hook in the first place might actually pretend a renaming of the bill because, of course, COVID-19 again, was the ostensible reason for the bill in the first place. But along with other Republicans, Susan Collins, for example, has some concerns she's expressed about the bill's original language and that link between hate crimes and coronavirus. But we know that there also is an amendment on tap from Senators Richard Blumenthal and Senator. Jerry Moran that would establish grants to aid state and local governments with their own hate crime

Starting point is 00:14:00 reporting on this front. So there are two pending Democratic amendments that we know of, one Republican amendment, and we're anticipating a vote on this bill by the end of the week. Wow. Okay. Well, we'll keep a close eye on it. It's going to be fascinating to see how this unfold. Really appreciate you breaking that down for us, Sarah. Sure. I do want to take some time to get into another topic that you've been covering very, very closely for the Daily Signal and the Heritage Foundation, and that's the subject of religious liberty and free speech. Recently, we've seen quite a few victories on college campuses around free speech and religious liberty. Let's talk about one specific case that happened at Shawnee State University in Portsmouth, Ohio, which is a public

Starting point is 00:14:46 University. Back in 2018, the Ohio University charged philosophy professor Nicholas Maryweather with a violation of Title IX because he refused to use a student's preferred pronoun. He said he could only use the student's biological pronoun. So could you just explain this case a little bit for us. What was the situation here? This is a fascinating case and an encouraging outcome from the Sixth Circuit federal court. And of course, there have been lots of judicial opinions, lots of jurists and legal scholars have come out with their own interpretations of why the Sixth Circuit was wrong in reaching the conclusions that it did when it issued a victory for Nicholas Meriwether. But this is somebody who had a spotless record at the university that had taught philosophy as a Christian

Starting point is 00:15:36 for over 25 years, had led tours overseas, discussing Christian thought, among other things. and he was a recipient of an email that went out to all faculty in 2017, indicating that it was now the faculty policy per administration to refer to students by their preferred pronouns. Well, Nicholas Meriwether actually wanted to get ahead on the issue. He went to his department chair, and he said, listen, as a Christian, I'm going to have a hard time adhering to this policy. Let me tell you why.

Starting point is 00:16:10 And his department chair actually exhibited patent hostility. to Dr. Maryweather. She said that Christianity had no point. It had no place in academia and that it was primarily motivated out of fear, his desire just to use biological pronouns or just to use the student's last name. So these were things that while he may have had objections to, she informed him that he was going to have to adhere to anyway, but it was not tested until 2018 when he was actually in a class and saw a student, obvious male biology, no indication of this student's preferred pronouns in any record, in any academic record. So I can start by saying that this was a student who, to me, sort of raises the specter of whether or not this individual was attempting

Starting point is 00:17:05 to make a political statement. There was no record whatsoever of a preferred pronoun. And when Dr. Maryweather referred to that individual as sir, as opposed to ma'am, the individual came up and said, listen, I'm transgender and I want you to refer to me by a female pronoun. Long story short, after back and forth and the threat of further disciplinary action, again, for a teacher who had a spotless record who had had two and a half decades of stellar exemplary work at the university, he decided he was going to be proactive and he brought suit in federal court. And ultimately, the Sixth Circuit decided absolutely you cannot compel a professor to say something with which he does not agree. And professors, as much as anyone else, do not relinquish their constitutional rights when they walk in the schoolhouse door.

Starting point is 00:18:03 So essentially, the Sixth Circuit has said, yes, this case can, forward proceed. So after the Sixth Circuit's decision, what happens now? So the case will be remanded in part. The case granted summary judgment for Mr. Meriwether himself, which is wonderfully dispositive on certain questions. He brought a number of claims, but as concerns the First Amendment claim, which is really sort of the biggest issue here. The Sixth Circuit decided, listen, we're going to close the book on this. This is what we're making a decision, a determination on right now, but it will be remanded for the other claims that he brought up because the court requested supplemental briefing by both parties to make sure that all of the facts had been displayed that they had been investigated. So we'll be curious to see what the outcome is

Starting point is 00:18:54 there, but this is a groundbreaking decision out of the Sixth Circuit. And I do think that Judge Thapar, who is a, he is American Indian. He is somebody whose family is immigrant, and they have really worked their way up. He is a judge of stellar credentials who was the second of President Trump's judicial nominees. He really had no patience whatsoever for this new catalog of wokeness that we're seeing come out of universities

Starting point is 00:19:24 and said, these need to be paragon's of intellectual diversity. We cannot compel the speech of our professors any more than we could compel it of our students. And this is ultimately, a slam dunk win for the First Amendment on college campuses. Well, and, you know, sadly, this is a situation that we've seen played out before. The Daily Signal did a documentary about a teacher that had a very similar situation happen and lost their job because, you know, they essentially called, called a student by the wrong pronoun,

Starting point is 00:19:59 quote-unquote wrong pronoun. So what, I mean, what does this ruling mean for freedom of speech and religion? religious liberty moving forward? Well, there's this excellent precedent if there are suits in the future. What we've done now is based on the case that you are referring to, the case of Peter Vlamming, in the Fourth Circuit, it sets up a circuit split between the Fourth Circuit and now the Sixth Circuit, both of which reached opposite outcomes on the use of preferred pronouns within an academic setting. Setting up the circuit split actually tease up a Supreme Court consideration.

Starting point is 00:20:35 Now, whether or not we'll actually see that remains to be seen, but there is now sufficient jurisdiction because there's a difference of two federal circuits for the Supreme Court to grant cert and make ultimately a determination which of the two impressions and analyses is correct. So it will be something definitely for future consideration. So could one of these cases rise to the level of the Supreme Court, or do you think that would be a separate instance that would bring this issue to the Supreme Court? potentially. It's not beyond the pale for Shawnee State and its Board of Governors to continue litigation until they receive the outcome that they want in this case. And while ultimately the Supreme Court has not ruled on an issue as specific as this since the case of Pickering, which was a few decades ago in which the court said, we're not getting to the question of how much freedom within a scholastic context a professor has. That's for a later date.

Starting point is 00:21:35 And that was a case on which the circuit ruled ultimately using what's called sort of the Pickering analysis, the Pickering balancing test, whether or not preferred pronouns are a matter of public concern. The Supreme Court will want to revisit that rationale from Pickering to make a determination about whether or not this is an appropriate interpretation. So it's wholly possible that Shawnee State could say there is a circuit split. we are unhappy with the outcome and we're going to appeal this to the Supreme Court. Well, Sarah, before we let you go today, I want to take a little bit of time just to find out about yourself to share a little bit of your own story with our audience. This is your first time on problematic women, but we hope to have you on many, many more times in the future. So how did you first get interested in the field of law? Well, actually, I am the daughter of a lawyer.

Starting point is 00:22:34 and swore I would never do public interest law, ha ha, never say never, because that's precisely what I ended up doing. I took sort of a circuitous route. I got my start in complex civil litigation. Ultimately, I wanted to help people. And I do think I was one of those people for whom the rose-colored glasses were still on when I graduated from law school. And it was once told law school teaches you to think about the law, but actually practicing the law makes you a lawyer. And I, I'm a lawyer. And I, I found that I didn't like complex litigation as much as I thought. There wasn't sort of that connection to the element of helping people that I had really hoped for the first time around. So I went in-house at an advertising agency, did corporate and transactional law and development for them for a number of years.

Starting point is 00:23:23 And then as fate and divine intervention would have it, had three kids in short order, got involved in public policy work, another never-say-never moment. and that's precisely where I ended up re-entering the workforce, found myself drawn specifically to the notion of academic freedom. And my work in building coalitions dedicated to religious liberty and defending against incidents of anti-Semitism on campus was sort of the perfect match. Ultimately, that set me up for my tenure at the Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights,

Starting point is 00:24:00 a senior counsel there. And then here I am now. at the Heritage Foundation doing and writing about precisely the types of things that I went to law school to do. Yeah. Well, we are certainly honored to have you at Heritage. It's a true, true blessing and treat. For anyone listening who, you know, is maybe weighing, do I go to law school? Should I pursue a career in law? What would you, what would you say to them? What would be your advice to them? Well, I think I would start by saying you need to ask yourself the question of why it is. is you want to be a lawyer. For me, that was sort of the continual refrain. That was sort of the

Starting point is 00:24:39 violin e-string that continued to play. I really wanted to help people who were discriminated against. And one of the areas of law in which I practiced was employment discrimination law. My father himself, civil rights attorney, who also practiced an employment discrimination law. But if you start with the why, the how, what, and when always falls into place, I think also. So you need to ask yourself if you are thinking the public interest law firm route or the public interest nonprofit route or you're interested in going the partner fast track route. Because for individuals like me who knew I wanted to have children, that was certainly out of range for a while. So the why is definitely the first and most important question. Yeah.

Starting point is 00:25:31 Well, thank you so much for your time today. really appreciate you coming on. I was happy to do it. Thanks, Virginia. And that'll do it for today's episode. Thanks for listening to The Daily Signal Podcast. You can find the Daily Signal podcast on Google Play, Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and IHeart Radio. Please be sure to leave us a review and a five-star rating on Apple Podcasts and encourage

Starting point is 00:25:54 others to subscribe. Thanks again for listening and we'll be back with you all tomorrow. The Daily Signal podcast is brought to you by more than half a million members of the Heritage Foundation. It is executive produced by Kate Trinko and Rachel Del Judas, sound design by Lauren Evans, Mark Geinie, and John Pop. For more information, visit DailySignal.com.

The Daily Signal - Hidden Agenda in Left’s New Hate Crime Bill

There aren't comments yet for this episode. Click on any sentence in the transcript to leave a comment.