Managing Differences and Making Legislation: Social Movements and The Racialization, Sexualization, and Gendering of Federal Hate Crime Law in The U.S

Managing Differences and Making Legislation: Social Movements and the Racialization,
Sexualization, and Gendering of Federal Hate Crime Law in the U.S., 1985-1998
Author(s): Valerie Jenness
Source: Social Problems, Vol. 46, No. 4 (Nov., 1999), pp. 548-571
Published by: University of California Press on behalf of the Society for the Study of Social
Problems
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3097075 .

Accessed: 20/06/2014 18:03
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
University of California Press and Society for the Study of Social Problems are collaborating with JSTOR to
digitize, preserve and extend access to Social Problems.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 194.29.185.227 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 18:03:14 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Managing Differencesand Making

Legislation: Social Movements and the
Racialization, Sexualization, and Gendering
of Federal Hate Crime Law in the U.S.,
1985-1998*
VALERIE JENNESS, University
Irvine
ofCalifornia,
Thisworkaddressesa centralquestionin bothsocialproblems
and sociolegalstudies:howcan we
theory
victims?
It
understand
and accountforthecontent
thatdefine
socialproblems
and attendant
oflegalcategories
an empirical
and evolution
analysisoftheemergence
offederalhatecrimelaws-the Hate CrimesStatisoffers
ticsAct,theViolence
Act-thatdetermine
who
AgainstWomenAct,and theHate CrimesPenaltyEnhancement
is and is noteligible
histories
status.Byexamining
thelegislative
forhatecrimevictim
oftheselaws as evidence
discursive
moments"
character
(Gamson1992),1 showhow thesubstantive
of "critical
ofthelaw was shaped
eleovertime:I firstestablisha historical
context
forfederalhatecrimelaw; thenI analyzehowan important
sexualorientamenthatecrimelaw-the adoptionofselectstatusprovisions,
suchas race,religion,
ethnicity,
violencehavebeenrecognized
suchthatsomevictims
tion,gender,and disabilities-unfolded
ofdiscriminatory
whileothershavegoneunnoticed.
In particular,
as hatecrimevictims
peopleofcolor,Jews,gaysand lesbians,
have beenrecognized
as victims
women,and thosewithdisabilities
ofhate crime,whileunion
increasingly
thatthecontent
theelderly,
and policeofficers,
children,
members,
of
forexample,havenot.Thefindings
suggest
boundinstitutionally
whereby:
qualifiedprocesses
federalhatecrimelaw was shapedbya seriesoftemporally
of
ofthescopeofhatecrimeas a socialproblemwas established
bytheclaimsmaking
credibility
1) theempirical
and
socialmovement
established
2) a trioofcoreprovisions
forhatecrimelaw-race, religion,
organizations;
thatrendiscursive
as theanchoring
cemented
provisions
ofall hatecrimelaw through
strategies
ethnicity-was
credible
and worthy
deredparticulartypesofviolenceempirically
3) thedomainofthelaw
offederalattention;
distinct
mostnotablysexualorientation
and gender,in qualitatively
expandedto includeadditionalprovisions,
with
in waysconsistent
oflegalsubjectsin subsequentlaw occurred
ways;and 4) theincreaseddifferentiation
thesefindingsreveal how
policypedigrees.Taken together,
previouslyestablishedand institutionalized
and largerpromicrolevel
mobilization,
work,mesolevel
processes
ofcategorization
ofsocialmovement
processes
as politicalactorscreateand coalescearoundlegalmeaningsthatdefine
cessesofinstitutionalization
interface
and "people-categories"
both"condition-categories"
(Loseke1993).
In 1998, three highlypublicized cases of homicide involved victimsapparentlychosen

In March, fouryoung girlswere gunned down in a
because of a single social characteristic.
theirclassmates;the boysnow in custodyforthe killtwo
of
Arkansas
Jonesboro,
schoolyardby
because
to
shoot
revealed
girlsangered them. In June,James Byrd,a
girls
ings
they sought
* An earlierversionof thispaper was presentedat the 1998 annual meetingsof the Societyforthe Studyof Social
Problemsin San Francisco,Californiaand thereafterreceived the AlfredR. LindesmithAward fromthe Societyforthe
Study of Social Problems.Teresa Flores, Karen Kvashny,Gary Lopez, Wanjiru Muchiri,Don Ojoko-Adams, and Kim
Richman assisted with data collection; Don Barrett,KittyCalavita, John Dombrink,Jim Holstein,Donileen Loseke,
Nancy Naples, JodiO'Brien, and especiallyRykenGrattetofferedusefulsubstantivesuggestions.The Universityof California,Irvine financiallysupportedthisproject.Direct correspondenceto ValerieJenness,Departmentof Criminology,
Law and Society,Department of Sociology, Universityof California,Irvine, California 92697-7080. E-mail:
jenness@uci.edu
SOCIAL PROBLEMS, Vol.46, No. 4, pages 548-571.
Copyright? 1999 by SocietyfortheStudyofSocial Problems,Inc.
ofCaliforniaPress,
All rightsreserved.Send requestsforpermissionto reprintto: Rightsand Permissions,University
JournalsDivision,2120 BerkeleyWay,Berkeley,CA 94720.ISSN: 0037-7791.

and MakingLegislation
ManagingDifferences
49 year-oldblack man in Texas, was beaten and then draggedbehind a truckto his death by
threewhite men affiliatedwith a white supremacistgroup. Most recently,in Laramie,Wyoming,MatthewShepard,a younggay man, was pistol-whipped,tiedto a fence,and leftto die.
To various degrees, each of these events provided a platformfor public discussion of the
to recognizethe difference
between "hate
meaning of hate crimeand the law's responsibility
crime"and "ordinarycrime."Thisdistinction
signalsthata new categoryofcrime-hate crimehas secureda place in the "social problemsmarketplace"(Hilgartnerand Bosk 1988).
As journalists,activists,politicians,educators, communityrepresentatives,and others
continue to debate how best to respondto a reported"risingtide of bigotryand bloodshed"
(Levin and McDevitt1993), the law has become the primaryinstitutionchargedwithdefining
and curbinghate- or bias-motivatedviolence. Legal reformhas been a-if not the-dominant
responseto bias-motivatedviolence in the U.S. (Jennessand Grattet2000). Duringa congressional debate on hate crime,U.S. RepresentativeMario Biaggi argued: "the obvious point is
thatwe are dealingwitha nationalproblemand we mustlook to our laws forremedies"(CongressionalRecord1985:19844). Accordingly,in the early 1980s, state and federallawmakers
throughoutthe U.S. began respondingto what they perceived to be an escalation of intergroup conflictwith a novel legal strategy:criminalizinghate-motivatedintimidationand violence. As U.S. RepresentativeJohn Conyers,Jr.,now the rankingmemberof the Judiciary
to vicCommittee,explained: the enactmentof hate crimelegislation"will carryto offenders,
tims,and to societyat largean importantmessage,thatthe Nationis committedto battlingthe
violentmanifestations
ofbigotry"(U.S. Congress
1985a:62).
But the question remains,what manifestationsof violent conduct and what types of
people occupy centerstage in Congress'sbattleagainstbigotryand why? Since the inception
of the termhate crime,federallegislatorshave generallyagreed that"hate crimes,which can
rangefromthreatsand vandalismto arson,assault and murder,are intendednot just to harm
the victim,but to send a message of intimidationto an entirecommunityof people" (U.S.
Record1988:11393). Moreover, the general
RepresentativeConyers cited in Congressional
justificationforfederallegislationhas been that harassmentand intimidation,assault, and
destructionofpropertyassume a particularly
dangerousand sociallydisruptivecharacterwhen
motivatedby bigotry(Jacobsand Potter1998; Jennessand Grattet2000; Lawrence 1999). In
contrastto congressionaldebates featuringcompetingdefinitionsof social problems(e.g. paid
work, family,and gender [Bursteinand Bricher 1997] or welfare reform[Naples 1997]),
membersof Congressnever departedfromthisbasic formulation.There has, however,been
considerablecontroversyover what typesof people and what "targetgroups"(Soule and Earl
1999) should be protectedby hate crimelegislation.As a result,some victimsof discriminatoryviolence have been recognizedas hate crimevictimswhile othershave gone unnoticed:
people of color,Jews,gaysand lesbians,women, and those withdisabilitiesincreasinglyhave
been recognizedas hate-crimevictims,while union members,the elderly,children,and police
officers
have not been recognizedby law as victimsofhate crime.Thisdifferentiation
affectsthe
kindsofpeople protected,and thus the kindsofviolence prosecutorscan pursue as hate crime.
Distinctionsalong these lines reflectthe statutesthatdefinehate- or bias-motivatedviolence as "hate crime,"distinctfrom"ordinarycrime"(Grattet,Jennessand Curry1998; Jenness
and Grattet1996, 2000; Lawrence 1999). That is, the statusesincludedin the conceptof "hate
crime"are firstand foremosta matterof legal interpretation.
Moreover, how some statuses
become includedin the legal categoryofhate crimeis a functionofhow law is shaped-a fundamentallypoliticalprocess.With thisin mind,thisarticleexamines one element of a larger
politicalprocessby addressinga centralquestionin social problemstheoryand sociolegal studies: how can we understandand account forthe creation,content,and institutionalization
of
legal meanings,especiallythose that identifyvictimsassociated with a contemporarysocial
problem?To investigatethe fullrange of definitionalactivitiesthatconstructsocial problems,
we need to "expand interestinto the constructionofpeople categories"because "constructing

549
550
JENNESS
people-typesis integralto the process of constructingcondition-types"(Loseke 1993:207208).' This a particularlyuseful move with regardto hate crimebecause, in large part,the
people-category(i.e., victims)definesthe condition-category
(i.e., hate crime).
An accumulatingbody of work examines the processes of legal reform,criminalization,
and legislativecampaignsthatdefinecrimeand thus victimsof crime.The literaturepointsto
importantexogenous factorsthat firstprovidethe impetusforcriminalizationand then sustain the process over time, includinga diverse arrayof social actors,interestgroups,social
movements,politicalopportunities,structuralconditions,and media (forreviewssee Galliher
and Cross 1983; Grattet,Jennessand Curry1998; Hagan 1980; Rafter1990). Althoughanalystscombine these factorsto account forthe emergenceand contentof legal categories,the
resultis only a partialpicture.An exclusivefocuson politicalinfluencesand social structural
variablesdivertsattentionaway fromhow legal ideas are assembled,presented,and processed
withinlawmakingarenas (Arnold 1990:92). In previouswork on hate crimelaw, forexample,
Jennessand Grattet(1996) used a completeinventoryof hate crimestatutesin the U.S. and
social indicatordata to investigatethe social forcesshapingthe passage of hate crimelegislation; they concluded that structuraland policy determinantsdo not sufficiently
explain the
recent criminalizationof hate. In lightof these findings,they argued that symbolic,social
movement,and discursivefactorsmust be consideredmore fully.Accordingly,in later work
Grattetet al. (1998) foundevidence thatsocial movement-relatedfactors,especiallythe presence of social movement organizations(SMOs) and expert networks,provide robust and
durable predictorsof the criminalizationof hate; however, they did not link this findingto
specificlegislativeprocessesthat produce law and determineits content.Exactlyhow social
movementmobilizationshapes law and the work oflawmakersremainsto be addressed.
Consistentwith a growingliterature(Arnold 1990; Chock 1991, 1994, 1995; Naples
1997), more analyticattentionneeds to be devoted to examininghow legislativereformin
particularand policymakingmore generallyare organizedand unfoldas proposals forlegal
reformare introduced,managed,and accepted or rejectedin legislativearenas. In thisinstitutional arena, legislativedebates occur,constituencyinterestsare negotiated,and politicalwills
are enacted as key players engage in what Burstein (1991:327) calls "the strugglefor the
adoptionof particularpolicies"when policymakerssiftthroughalternativeproposals(Kingdon
1984). In particular,we need to know how SMOs pursuing legal reform-what Best
(1990:14-15) refersto as "outside claimsmakers"-interactwith policymakers'interpretive
and discursivepracticesto give meaningto statutesas theydevelop and stabilizeover time.
to use law to conThis article'sempiricalfocusis how hate-motivatedviolence and efforts
trolit were constructed,in both discretemomentsand over time,in the U.S. Congress.It is
here that decisions about the legal categoriesand substantivecontent of federallaws that
definehate crimehave been made, undone, and remade in visible and consequential ways.
From 1985 to the present,Congresshas held hearingson hate crimesand hate crimelegislation, resultingin the passage of threefederalhate crimelaws. These hearings,includingthe
reportsand debates they inspired,are "criticaldiscoursemoments" (Chilton 1987; Gamson
1992:26) thatreveal "the logic of congressionalaction" (Arnold 1990).2
1. Ibarraand Kitsuse(1993:26) proposedreplacingthe term"putativecondition"withthe term"condition-category"
as a way to move beyond epistemologicaldebates that address the degree to which social problemstheoristsengage in
Loseke (1993) uses
(Mauss and Jenness2000; Woolgarand Pawlich 1985). Accordingly,
"ontologicalgerrymandering"
the term"people-categories"to referto "putativepeople" who inhabitthose categories.
2. Criticaldiscourse moments are symbolicallyrevealingdiscretehistoricalevents that stimulatediscourse on a
particulartopic,make an issue especiallyvisible,and create perturbations.They contributeto the productionof social
problemsby publiclydefiningsocial conditionsas problematicin particularways and, at the same time,definea repertoireof victimsassociated with the social problem.I view these discursivemomentsas a formof practice,a manifestationofthe structureofsocial relationsrepresentedin them.BorrowingfromFoucault (1979) and, more recently,
Ferguson
(1984), administrativediscourseboth expresses and reflectsa particularstructureof institutionsand practices;it both
thepositions
discourseis legislative,
thepositionsofpersonsand events.In thiscase, theadministrative
createsand represents
forpersons are "hate crimevictims,"and the eventsare "hate crimes."

ManagingDifferences
Theoretical Concerns
The theoreticalmotivationforthe empiricalanalysisofthesehearingsis consistentwithtwo
interrelatedliteratures.First,drawingfromsocial problemstheory,thiswork examines "interpretiveprocessesthatconstitutewhat comes to be seen as oppressive,intolerable,or unjustconditions" (Miller and Holstein 1993:4). As with most social conditionsconstructedas social
problems,victimshave been renderedapparentin thesocialproblemofhate crimes.In commonsense terms,we routinelylabel personswho have been unjustlyharmedor damaged by forces
beyondtheircontrolas victims(Holsteinand Miller1990; Loseke 1993; Weed 1995). In the case
of hate crime,we can (now) point to racial minoritiesinjuredby racially-motivated
violence,
gays and lesbiansharmedby violence motivatedby homophobia,and women harmedsimply
because theyare female.These typesofpeople definethe largerproblemof hate crime.
A social constructionist
approach to victimizationdevotes analyticattentionto the social
known,and understoodas victims,as opposed
processesby whichpersonsbecome recognizable,
to injuredpersons(Holsteinand Miller1990; Loseke 1993). Thisapproachto the studyofvictimization is based on the notion thatmeaningdoes not inhere in objects,but is conferredupon
themas theyare interpreted,
organized,and representedthroughsocial interactionby socially
legitimatecollectiveactors,in thiscase social movementactivistsand legislators,engagedwhat
Loseke (1993:207) calls "people production."(Otheractors,especiallythe media,also playroles
in the construction
ofhate crimeand hate crimevictims.[e.g.,Best 1999 on the "IronQuadranare particularly
interestedin understandingthe definitionalprogle."]) Social constructionists
cesses thatresultin assigningvictimstatusto some individualsand groups,but not to others.
Such processesare criticalbecause, once designated,victimstatuscarrieswithit distinctunderstandingsof the social relationsthatsurroundthe individual,as well as his/herrelationshipto
a largersocial problem.Among otherthings,the label of victimunderscoresthe individual's
statusas an injuredperson harmedby forcesbeyond his/hercontrol;dramatizesthe injured
or harmedperson'sessentialinnocence; rendersher/himworthyof others'concernand assistance;and oftenresultsin legalreformdesignedto addresstheattendantsocialproblem(Holstein
and Miller 1990; Loseke 1993; Weed 1995). This approach departs radicallyfromconventional formulationsofvictimizationand allows us to reconceptualizevictimizationin termsof
interactional,discursive,and institutionalpractices.
Second, thiswork pursuesone of the mostpromisinglines of sociolegalresearch:examining how legal categoriesin generaland legal subjectsin particularare identifiedand institutionalized (Saratand Kearns 1997; Silbeyand Sarat 1989). To disentanglethe processwherebysome
individualsand constituenciesare renderedworthyof legal recognitionand recourse,while
othersare not,I focuson mesolevelprocessesofsocial movementmobilization(Beuchler 1990;
Gerhardand Rucht 1992; Klandermans1992; Staggenborg1998) as theyinterfacewithmicrowork" (Frohman1997; Holstein1993; Loseke 1993; Jayyusi1984)
processesof "categorization
to generatelaw. In so doing,this articleexamines law as a culturalproduction-made, conTo understandthisfundamentalprocessas it relatesto
tested,and ultimatelyinstitutionalized.
hate-motivatedviolence and the creationof hate crimevictimsas a contemporary"peoplecategory"associatedwiththe social problemof hate crime,myanalysisfocuseson threeprovi"sexual orientation,"and "gender"-to examine how the
sions-"race, religion,and ethnicity,"
people-categoryof hate crimevictimwas shaped over timein ways thatracialized,sexualized,
and genderedthe law. Throughout,my focusis on how processesof social movementmobilization,categorization
and institutionalization
work,domainexpansion,differentiation,
interrelate.
Federal Hate Crime Law in the U.S.

Followingthestates'lead,theU.S. Congresspassedthreelaws specifically
designedto address
bias-motivated
violence,and itcontinuesto debateadditionallegislation,
such as theHate Crimes

551
552
JENNESS
PreventionAct (S. 1529).3 In 1990 PresidentBush signed the Hate Crimes StatisticsAct,
requiringthe U.S. AttorneyGeneral to collect statisticaldata on "crimesthat manifestevidence of prejudice based on race, religion,sexual orientation,or ethnicity,includingwhere
appropriate the crimes of murder,non-negligentmanslaughter;forciblerape; aggravated
assault, simple assault, intimidation;arson; and destruction,damage or vandalism of property"(Public Law 101-275).4
In 1994, Congresspassed two more hate crimelaws. The Violence AgainstWomen Act
specifiesthat "all personswithinthe United Statesshall have the rightto be freefromcrimes
of violence motivatedby gender."As protectionof thisright,the Act createsa new civil remedy forvictimsof crimesofviolence motivatedby gender;in so doing,it affixedthe termhate
crimeto "a crimeofviolence committedbecause ofgenderor on the basis of gender,and due,
at least in part,to animus based on the victim'sgender"(PublicLaw 103-322).
Also in 1994, Congress passed the Hate Crimes Sentencing Enhancement Act, which
identifieseight predicatecrimes-murder; nonnegligentmanslaughter;forciblerape; aggravated assault; simple assault; intimidation;arson; and destruction,damage, or vandalism
of property-for which judges are allowed to enhance penalties of "not less than three
offenselevels foroffensesthat finderof factat trialdeterminesbeyond a reasonable doubt
are hate crimes" (Public Law 103-322). For the purposes of this law, hate crime is defined
as criminal conduct wherein "the defendantintentionallyselected any victimor property
as the object of the offense because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion,
national origin, ethnicity,gender, disability,or sexual orientation of any person" (Public
Law 103-322).
Data and Method of Analysis

Data
I examined
federalhate crimebills.Specifically,
record"surrounding
I reliedupon "theofficial
of the hearings,reports,debates,and committeeprintsaddressingthe three
verbatimtranscripts
bills thatultimatelybecame law: The Hate CrimesStatisticsAct (HCSA), the Violence Against
Women Act (VAWA),and the Hate CrimesSentencingEnhancementAct (HCSEA).' Itemizedin
theworkofsix Congressesas theygrappledwiththesethreebills.
Table 1, thesedocumentsreflect
recordofthislawmakingconsistsof43 documents(22 congressional
The official
hearings,12 conand
two
committee
seven
4,140 pages.
debates,
totaling
prints)
congressional
gressionalreports,
Combined,thesematerialsrevealthelegislativeworkingsand attendantdiscourseof hundredsof
fromsocial
as well as activists,
victims,representatives
lawmakersand othergovernmentofficials,
crime.
ofbias-motivated
and survivors/victims
movementand watchdogorganizations,
3. Throughoutthe 1980s and the 1990s most state legislaturespassed at least one law designedto deal with biasmotivatedviolence. For discussionsof state hate crime law, see Grattet,Jennessand Curry(1998); Jacobs and Potter
(1998); Jennessand Grattet(1996, 2000); Lawrence (1999); and Soule and Earl (1999). The Hate CrimesPrevention
Act (HCPA) "amends the Federal criminalcode to set penalties forpersonswho, whetheror not actingunder the color
of law, willfullycause bodily injuryto any person or, throughthe use of fire,firearm,or explosive device, attemptto
cause such injury,because of the actual or perceived: (1) race, color, religion,or national origin of any person; and
(2) religion,gender,sexual orientation,or disabilityof any person,where in connectionwith the offense,the defendant
of interstateor foreigncomor the victimtravelsin interstateor foreigncommerce,uses a facilityor instrumentality
interstateor foreigncommerce,or where the offenseis in or affectsinterstate
merce,or engages in any activityaffecting
or foreigncommerce" (S. 1529).
4. As discussedlater,in 1994, the HCSA was amended to include disabilityas a protectedstatus.
5. The Hate CrimesPreventionAct of 1998 (S. 1529) is excluded fromthisanalysisas it is currentlybeing debated
in the U.S. Senate and has yet to become law.

ManagingDifferences
MethodofAnalysis
Afterarrangingthe documentsin orderto produce a comprehensiveempiricalrecordof
how federallegislativebodies considered,debated,and accepted/rejectedproposals to criminalize bias-motivatedviolence,I organizedthe informationon each bill/Actaround key analytic dimensions, including: 1) the identityof the claimsmakersinvolved in the law's
of viovictims/survivors
production(activists,politicians,social movement representatives,
lence, etc.); 2) the typesof claimsput forthin favorof and in oppositionto variouslegislative
3) the various ways status characteristics-especiallyrace,
proposals; and most importantly,
sexual orientation,and gender-were characterized,described,implicated,
religion,ethnicity,
and negotiatedin the processof makingfederalhate crimelaw.
Once these dimensionswere coded and trackedover time,from1985 to 1998, I undertook a comparativecase study (Yin 1984). Each legislativehearing,report,and debate was
treatedas a case, one thatultimatelycould be combinedwithand comparedto otherindividual cases. The logic of this approach is that "each individualcase studyconsistsof a whole
study,in which convergentevidenceis soughtregardingthe factsand conclusionsforthe case;
each case's conclusionsare then consideredto be informationneeding replicationby other
individual cases" (Yin 1984:52). This method of analysis allows for "pattern-matching"
through"controlledcomparisons"as a primarymethod of increasinginternalvalidity(Stake
1994; Yin 1984). By comparingindividualcases along relevantdimensions,I identifiedempirical patternsand trends,while theoreticalideas emergedand were continuallyreformulated
via analyticinduction(Glaserand Strauss1967; Straussand Corbin 1994; Yin 1984).
This method of analysis ultimatelyallowed me to move beyond empiricalinvestigation
towardthe theoreticalconcernsidentifiedearlier.To do so, I firstestablisha historicalcontext
forfederalhate crimelaw; then I offeran analysisof an importantelementof the substantive
characterof hate crime:how selectedstatusesbecame "targetgroups" (Soule and Earl 1999),
definedand institutionalized
in federallaw. I focuson thisparticularfeaturebecause it,along
with an "intentstandard"(Berk,Boyd and Hamner 1992), distinguisheshate crimelaw from
other bodies of law (Grattet,Jenness and Curry 1998; Jenness and Grattet1996, 2000;
Lawrence 1999). More importantly,
it is this featureof hate crime legislationthat is most
with
the
theoretical
concerns
identifiedearlier.My analysis focuses on how
closely aligned
"race, religion,and ethnicity,""sexual orientation,"and "gender"were introduced,justified/
denied, and ultimatelyadopted as key provisionsin federalhate crimelaw. Since each provision representsa policyinnovationin its own right,I approach each-and the discoursethat
surroundsit-as a window throughwhichwe can see how law in generaland legal subjectsin
particularare createdand givenmeaningover time,such thatinjuredpersonsare transformed
into legally recognizablevictims
of "hate crime"and the legal concept hate crime is imbued
withracialized,sexualized,and genderedmeanings.
Making and Institutionalizing Federal Hate Crime Legislation
TheHistoricalContext
Hate-motivatedviolence and hate crime legislation,as types of behavior and policy
response, respectively,emerged in the latter part of the twentiethcentury.The so-called
basis and discursivethemes
"rightsmovements"ofthe 1960s and 1970s providedthe structural
necessaryto set the stage forreenvisioningviolence and hatefulexpressionsdirectedtoward
minoritiesas hate crime(Jennessand Broad 1997; Jennessand Grattet2000; Maroney 1998).
These movementsconvergedto question,and make publiclydebatable,issues of "rights"and
"harm"as theyrelateto a varietyofconstituencies.
The civilrights,
women's,and gayand lesbian
movements"called attentionto the personalcostsof minoritygroups' politicalvictimization,"

553
Table 1 * DocumentsComprisingthe OfficialRecordfor Federal LegislationRelated to Hate CrimeLaw, 1985-1998 (Exclu

Title
Bill/Law
Document
HCSA
Hate CrimesStatisticsAct
Hearing
HCSA
CrimesAgainstReligiousPracticesand Property
Hearing
HCSA
CrimesAgainstReligiousPracticesand Property
Hearing
HCSA
HCSA
HCSA
Report
Debate
HCSA
EthnicallyMotivatedViolence Against
Arab-Americans
Anti-GayViolence
HCSA
Anti-AsianViolence
Hearing
HCSA
HCSA
RaciallyMotivatedViolence
Report
Hearing
HCSA
HCSA
Debate
HCSA
RaciallyMotivatedViolence
Hearing
HCSA
HCSA
HCSA
HCSA
HCSA
HCSA
HCSA
VAWA
Women and Violence
Report
Report
Report
Debate
Debate
Debate
Debate
Hearing
Hearing
Hearing
Hearing
Body/Audience/Outlet
Legislative
Subcommitteeon CriminalJustice,
House JudiciaryCommittee
Committeeon the Judiciary
CongressionalRecord
Subcommitteeon Civil and ConstitutionalRig
CongressionalRecord
Subcommitteeon the Constitution,
CongressionalRecord
CongressionalRecord
CongressionalRecord
CongressionalRecord

VAWA
VAWA
Women and Violence

The Violence AgainstWomen Act
Hearing
VAWA
Report
Women and Violence
VAWA

ViolenceAgainstWomen: The Increase

of Rape in America
Hearing
Print
VAWA
Hearing
VAWA
ViolenceAgainstWomen: Victimsof the System

Report
Hearing
HCSEA
Bias Crime
Hearing
HCSEA
Hate CrimesSentencingEnhancement Act
Hearing
HCSA
Subcommitteeon Crime and CriminalJustice,

Hearing

VAWA
ViolenceAgainstWomen: A Week in the

LifeofAmerica
Print
HCSEA

ViolentCrimesAgainstWomen
Report
VAWA
Hearing

Committee on the Judiciary
VAWA
VAWA
Report
HCSA
Report
VAWA
Hearing

VAWA
ViolenceAgainstWomen: Fightingthe Fear

Crimesof Violence Motivated by Gender
VAWA
HCSA
Hearing
Subcommitteeon Constitutionaland Civil Righ

Report
Hearing

HCSA
Reauthorizationof the Hate Crimes StatisticsAct
Hearing
HCSA
To Reauthorizethe Hate Crimes StatisticsAct
HCSA
Report
Debate
Congressional Record
22 Congressional
7 Congressional
4140 Pa
Totals:3 bills/laws,
6 Congresses,
Prints,
Debates,2 Committee
Hearings,12 Congressional
Reports,

556
JENNESS
while "the victims'rightsmovementcalled attentionto the politicalcontextof personal victimization"(Maroney 1998:579). Combined,these movementsinstigatedpublic discussions
about violence born ofbigotryand manifestas discrimination.
In the late 1970s, the civilrightsand crimevictimmovementsmergedto producean antihate crimemovementcomposedofan arrayofanti-hatecrimeorganizations(Broad and Jenness
1996; Jenness 1995a, 1995b; Jenness and Broad 1997; Jenness and Grattet2000). "The
amount of police, legislative,judicial, scholarly,and communityactivityaround
extraordinary
hate crimein such a shortperiodoftime-less than two decades-is the resultofan emerging
social movementagainsthate crime"(Maroney 1998:568). This movementplayed a key role
in definingvictimsof hate crime.
as CoreStatusProvisions
TheEstablishment
of"Race,Religion,and Ethnicity"
in Hate CrimeLaw
Priorto the firsthate-crimeCongressionalhearingsin 1985, many organizationsin the
anti-hatecrimemovementmobilizedat the statelevel around bias-motivatedviolence. Their
claims accomplishedtwo things.First,theyattractedmedia attention(Best 1999; Jacobsand
Potter1998; Rovella 1994). Second, theypresentedexamples ofbias-motivatedcrimeensured
that the problemachieved "empiricalcredibility"(Jenness1995b; Jennessand Broad 1997).6
In response,several statespassed hate crimelaws (Grattet,Jennessand Curry1998; Jenness
and Grattet1996, 2000; Soule and Earl 1999). Thus, some formsof bias-motivatedviolence
were alreadydeemed criminalactivity.
Followingthese successes at the statelevel, anti-hatecrimeSMOs turnedtheirattention
to federallaw. Most notably,the Anti-DefamationLeague of B'nai B'rith (ADL) was an innovator in collecting,documenting,and publicizingincidentsof hate-motivatedviolence. Since
1979, the ADL has trackedanti-Semiticviolence and published an annual "Audit of AntiSemiticIncidents."Based on data reportedto ADL regionaloffices,these reportsdescribevarious "acts of harassment,threatand assault againstindividuals,theirpropertyand theirinstitutions" (Anti-DefamationLeague 1990:1). These reportsconsistentlyrevealed a substantial
increase in anti-Semiticvandalismand violence fromyear to year (Anti-DefamationLeague
to enhance the
1988). By the mid-1980s,the ADL became a centralplayerin nationalefforts
monitoringof bias crimesand the systematiccollectionof hate crimedata. The definitionof
the problem,its extent,and its worseningtrendwere largelya resultof theirefforts.Senator
Simon, forexample, recognized"the group thathas kept the best statisticsin thiswhole field
is the Anti-DefamationLeague of B'nai B'rith. They report a rising tide of anti-Semitic
Record
activity.It is the only solid statisticalevidence we have in the nation" (Congressional
from
the
those
law
enforcement
when
Moreover,
especially
representatives,
1990a:1072).
Bureau of JusticeStatistics,opposed the HCSA on the groundsthat hate crime data simply
could not be collected,Simon responded: "but it does seem to me that ifMr. Schwartzover
here withthe ADL can collectdata on thiskindof problem,we oughtto be able to do it in the
DepartmentofJustice.I thinkit is an importantservicethatis needed in the nation" ( U.S. Congress1988a:122).
The ADL's Legal AffairsDepartmentalso drafteda model hate crimebill to be introduced
in statelegislatures.The ADL's model legislationcontainedtwo parts:the InstitutionalVandalism Statuteprohibitsan individualfromvandalizing,defacing,or damagingplaces ofworship,
cemeteries,schools,or communitycenters;while the IntimidationStatuteprovidesenhanced
penaltiesforcrimescommittedbecause of the victim'sactual or perceivedrace, color,religion,
sexual orientation,or national origin.By the time the U.S. Congressheld its firsthearingon
hate crimeon March 21, 1985, almosthalfthe stateshad adopted a hate crimestatutesimilar
6. Claims are empiricallycredible"to the extentthat thereare events and occurrencesthat can be pointed to as
documentaryevidence" (Snow and Benford1992:140).

ManagingDifferences
to the ADL's model. At thispoint,the termhate crimereferenceda narrowlydefinedphenomenon. The (early) definitionof hate crime,which was restrictedto acts involvingracial, religious, or ethnic bias, was largelythe result of the watchdog groups, especially the ADL.
Consistentwiththe ADL's data collectionefforts
and model legislation,earlyfederallegislative
focused
on
and
"race,
proposals
only
ethnicity"as the core provisionsin federalhate
religion,
crimelegislation,thus only people of color,non-Christians,and ethnicminoritieswere envisioned as targetpopulations.
Introducedin 1985 and supportedby "The Coalitionon Hate Crimes,"7the HCSA was the
firstpiece of federallegislationto bringnational attentionto the problemof hate-motivated
violence,underscorethe need forofficialresponse,and createa new categoryof crimeto be
counted as partof largerfederalefforts
to keep trackof crime.Earlyin the formulationof this
bill,only provisionsforrace, religion,and ethnicitywere included.In the firsthearing,RepresentativeMineta called the HCSA "a piece of legislationthatwill help protectAmericansfrom
the most insidioustypesof crimes,those that are motivatedby a hatredof a person merely
because of theirrace,theirreligiousor theirethnicbackground"( U.S. Congress
1985b:27).
Afterhearingson "CrimesAgainstReligious Practicesand Property"in July,1985, the
House Committeeon the Judiciaryurgedpassage ofthe HCSA to "collectand publishstatistics
on crimesmotivatedby racial,ethnic,
and religious
1985c:1). Although
prejudice"(U.S. Congress
representativesfromthe Federal Bureau of Investigation(FBI) objected to the bill on the
grounds that it was unenforceable,no testimonycontestedthe legitimacyof race, religion,
and ethnicityas core provisionsin hate crimelegislation.Moreover,no additionalstatusprovisions were mentioned,much less formallyintroducedas amendmentsto the bill. Clearly,
this conceptualizationof the social problemwas devised by outside claimsmakers(i.e., SMOs
and theirrepresentatives),generallyagreed upon by the relevantmoral entrepreneurs,and
encounteredlittleresistancewhen it was importedinto the federallegislativearena.
Adding "Sexual Orientation"to theList ofStatus Provisionsin Hate CrimeLaw

Soon, the domain of hate crimelaw began to expand. Domain expansion occurs when
claimsmakersoffernew definitionsthat extend the boundaries of the phenomenon deemed
problematic(Best 1990; Jenness 1995a, 1995b). The domain covered by federalhate crime
legislationbegan to expand as new targetgroupswere identified.Specifically,afterthe HCSA
bill was introducedin 1985, but beforeit passed in 1990, "sexual orientation"was added to its
listof statusprovisions;similarly,
the HCSEA included"sexual orientation"as a provision.This
addition expanded the domain of protectedgroupsand gave new meaning to the termhate
crimeby redefiningthe people-categoryassociatedwithit.
Similarto the role the ADL played in the initialhearingson hate crime,in subsequent
hearingson the HCSA and the HCSEA, the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force (NGLTF)and
othergay and lesbian civilrightsgroupsproved crucialin evokingand sustainingthe expansion of the law. Joan Weiss,ExecutiveDirectorof the NationalInstituteAgainstPrejudiceand
Violence,acknowledgedthe work of the NGLTF:"we have the Anti-DefamationLeague data;
we have the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force data; we have data froma varietyof sources
and, in fact,as faras we're concerned,the evidence ofthe existenceof the problemis irrefutable" (U.S. Congress
1988b:18).
7. The Coalition on Hate Crimeswas comprisedof civil rights,religious,ethnic,and law enforcementgroups,as
well as a diverse array of professionalorganizations,includingthe ADL, the American Bar Association,30 Attorneys
General,the National InstituteAgainstPrejudiceand Violence,the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, the American
PsychologicalAssociation,the AmericanPsychiatricAssociation,the CenterforDemocraticRenewal, the AmericanCivil
LibertiesUnion, the AmericanJewishCongress,People forthe AmericanWay,the National Organizationof Black Law
EnforcementExecutives,the U.S. Civil RightsCommission,the Police ExecutivesResearch Forum,the CriminalJustice
StatisticsAdministration,
the InternationalAssociationof Police Chiefs,the National Council of Churches,the National
Coalitionof AmericanNuns, and the AmericanArab Anti-Discrimination
Committee.

557
558
JENNESS
On October9, 1986 the Subcommitteeon CriminalJusticeofthe Committeeon the Judiciaryconducted an oversighthearingon antigayviolence (U.S. Congress1986a). At this hearon
ing,the NGLTFand othergay and lesbianorganizationsplayedthe centralrole by testifying
the causes, manifestations,
and consequences of antigayand lesbian violence, as well as the
public invisibilityand epidemic scope of the problem. Kevin Berrill,the Director of the
NGLTF's Violence Project,was the firstto testifyand his chiefconcern was to "recommend
officialmonitoringof antigayincidentsand otherhate crimes"( U.S. Congress
1986a:4). He said
"presentlythereis a bill,H.R. 2455, which has passed the House and is pendingin the Senate,
that would mandate the collection of statisticson crimesmotivatedby racial and religious
prejudice. We [the NGLTF] urge its passage and ask Congressto enact legislationthatwould
1986a:4).
requirethe collectionof data on antigaycrimes"(U.S. Congress
Testimonydesignedto include sexual orientationin federalhate crimelaw made frequent
comparisonsbetween antigayand lesbian violence and violence based on race, religion,or
ethnicity.For example,Berrillcomparedhomosexuals to Jews:
at thishearingwillbe wearinga pinktriangle,
I wouldliketo pointoutthatmanyofthewitnesses
it
homosexualinmatesofNaziconcentrations
whichwas thebadgethatidentified
camps.Although
ofgaypersonswereherdedintothecamps,and,along
is an oftenoverlooked
fact,tensofthousands
them
toremember
Wewearthetriangle
andothers,
weregassedandincinerated.
withJews,gypsies,
cost.(U.S.Congress
and to remindpeopleoftheterrible
1986a:5)
On behalf of the AmericanPsychologicalAssociation,GregoryHerek comparedthe statusof
gaysto racial,religious,and ethnicminorities:"Ifwe simplymake it illegalto discriminateand
illegal to be openly hostile,to be openly prejudicedagainst gay people in the same way we
have tried to address prejudice against racial minorities,ethnic minorities,and religious
minorities,then thatis going to help achieve that climatein which violence is unacceptable"
(U.S. Congress 1986a:18-19). A reportpreparedby the NGLTF and included as part of the
officialrecordof the hearingon antigayviolence urged Congressto "protectthe fullrange of
groupsin thiscountrythatare subjectedto acts of violence because of theirstatusor identity.
[By] failingto include provisionsforgay and lesbian people in hate crime legislation,lawmakerssend a message to the public and to criminalsthatantigayviolence is consideredless
serious than crimesagainst other minorities"(U.S. Congress1986a:55-56). Recommendations
such as these renderedviolence motivatedby homophobia or heterosexismequivalentto violence motivatedby racial,religious,or ethnicprejudice.Inside claimsmakers,legislatorsin this
case, heeded these comparisons.
The importanceofthese claims,as well as the groupsthatpresentedthem,were continumentioned
by lawmakers.RepresentativeConyers,forexample, explained: "I thinkit is
ally
of these groups,along with existingcivilrightsorganizathe proliferation
that
veryimportant
tions, is very helpfulin formulatingremedies" (U.S. Congress1988b:25). When questioned
about the sexual orientationprovision by legislatorswho opposed it, Conyers noted the
importanceof SMOs and otheroutside claimsmakers:
that
isbecausetherewasno testimony
whoareassaulted
Thereasonwe didnotincludeoctogenarians
not
did
the
reason
we
them
and
visited
the
crimes
awful
as
to
as
are,
that
be,
upon
suggested theyought
do,is thattherewas no
killedinthelineofduty,
accountforpolicemen
policeorganizations
although
Record
crimestatistics.
outfromtheuniform
1988:11395)
(Congressional
requestthattheybe separated
immediatelyresponded:
Gekas,who opposed the inclusionofsexual orientation,
Representative
in
haveitsrequestaccededtobyinclusion
istohavethegayrights
organization
[I]ftheonlycriterion
toput
torecommit,
shouldjoinwithmenowina motion
thatthegentleman
that,I saytotheMembers
on theincitobe gathered
inthisbillofstatistics
andallowtheinclusion
thisbillbackintocommittee
which
andattacks
on othergroups
on policemen,
attacks
on theelderlyi,
denceofchildabuse,ofattacks
Record
ofsuchtypeofcrime.(Congressional
1988:11403)
mightforone reasonoranotherbe victims

ManagingDifferences
Despite objectionslike these, however, increasinglywidespread acceptance of comparisons between gaysand lesbiansand racial,religious,and ethnicminoritiesis evident.Following the hearingson antigayviolence,sexual orientationwas routinelyacknowledgedas a basis
forhate crime.The firstsubsequent hearing-a July10, 1987 hearingdevoted to Anti-Asian
Violence-contained many referencesto race, religion,ethnicity,and sexual orientation.For
example, RepresentativeMineta claimed: "We are here today to discuss the experiencesof
one group,Americansof Asian and Pacificancestry,a groupwhich remainsa targetformuch
violence and abuse. [A]ll such attacksare appallingand destructive.Worse still:Actsof racial,
religious,ethnicor sexual intoleranceappear to be on the upswing"(U.S. Congress
1987:3). Six
months afterthe hearing on antigayand lesbian violence, the Committeeon the Judiciary
submitteda reportto the Committeeof the Whole House that reflectedacceptance of sexual
orientationas necessaryprovisionin the now revisedbill. Thereafterin the historyof federal
hate crimelegislation,sexual orientationroutinelyappeared in listsof statusesto be considered
forinclusionin law.
The inclusion of sexual orientationdid not go uncontested;instead, it "promptedan
assault on the billby conservativesin the House and Senate" (Fernandez 1991:272). Although
some objectionswere based on the groundsthatincludingsexual orientationalong withrace,
religion,and ethnicitywould make the data collectionefforttoo broad and expensive,by far
the primaryobjectionwas thatantigayand lesbian violence is more distinctfromthan similar
to violence connectedto race, religion,or ethnicity.Therefore,opponentsargued,the federal
governmentshould not provide gays and lesbians with special, undeserved rights;to do so
would renderviolence againstgays and lesbians equivalent to violence againstracial,ethnic,
and religiousminoritiesin ways thatare both undesirableand unjustifiable.
One versionofthisargumentinsistedthatitis not thefederalgovernment'sresponsibility
to
violence. For example,Gekas,McCollum, Coble,
protectgaysand lesbiansfromdiscriminatory
and Dannemeyer,all of whom supportedthe race, religion,and ethnicity
provisions,dissented
fromthe recommendationto pass the HCSA withthe sexual orientationprovision:
a Federalnexusis essentialtojustify
a Federalresponse.Absentsucha nexus,one must
Normally
be ableat theveryleastto baseFederalinvolvement
in statematters
on thegoalofeithersupportStatelaw enforcement.
It mustbe emphasizedthatcrime
ing the commongood or promoting
thereis no reasonto believethat
However,
againstanyclassofpersonsis obviously
reprehensible.
crimeagainsthomosexuals
transcends
theabilityofindividualStatesto respond.Thereis no evidenceof an interstate
such as the Ku Klux Klan or the Nationfocusedon homoorganization
sexuals.Thereis no mentionof homosexualrightsin the Constitution.
In fact,thereappearsno
evidencethathomosexuals
aremoretargeted
forcrimethangroupssuchas women,the
convincing
members
ofthepoliceorpassengers
on urbanmasstransit.
at considerable
Thus,gathering
elderly,
costFederalstatistics
on crimeagainsthomosexualsis notonlyunjustified
in itselfbutalso unfair
vis-a-visotheraffinity
1988a: 12)
groups. (U.S. Congress
to ensure the equal protectionof all citizens

They concluded: "[I]t is a Federal responsibility
regardlessof theirrace, religion,or ethnicorigin.It is not a Federal obligationto protectcitizens in theirsexual orientation"(U.S. Congress
1988a:13).
These protestscontinuedin subsequentcongressionaldebates.Dannemeyerand Helms in
particulardissentedin congressionalhearingsimmediatelVleading to passage of the HCSA
Record1989, 1990a, 1990b). Helms opposed includingsexual orientationin the
(Congressional
bill and claimed that Congress was being "hoodwinked" into passing the "flagshipof the
homosexual, lesbian legislativeagenda" (Congressional
Record1990a:1076):
theideaoflegislation
torequire
thecollection
ofstatistics
on so-called
hatecrimes
[W]heredo youthink
Ifthisis sucha wonderful
crimefighting
originated?
witha group
tool,itsurelymusthaveoriginated
knownforitstoughstanceon crime,
Thisideawasdreamed
right?
Wrong.
up bytheNational
Gayand
LesbianTaskForce.Thatis a matterofrecord.[I]tis clearthatthemilitanthomosexualshave been build-
ofcomplaints-not,
letme emphasize,
ofcriminal
ingup thenumbers
offenses
or charges.
Theyhave

559
560
JENNESS
is necessary.
beenbuilding
ofcomplaints
to bolster
theircasethatthistypeoflegislation
up numbers
is a crucialfirst
hatecrimes
[T]heevidenceis clear,Mr.President.
step
Studying
againsthomosexuals
in American
ThisSenatorcannot,
andwill
towardachieving
homosexual
andlegitimacy
society.
rights
Record
1990a:1076)
toanylegislation
movement.
whichfuelsthehomosexual
not,be party
(Congressional
In response,supporterssuch as RepresentativeGreen,assertedthat"the removalofsexual orientation fromH.R. 3193 would reinforcethe widespread perceptionthat victimizationof
homosexuals is acceptable" and therefore"sexual orientationshould not be separated from
otherformsof hate violence because perpetratorsof racial, religious,and antigaycrimesare
Record1988:11397).
frequentlythe same" (Congressional
Aftermuch heated debate, the term sexual orientationwas replaced with the phrase
"homosexualityor heterosexuality."As a way of appeasing dissentingopinion concerned
about "special rights"forgays and lesbians,RepresentativeMillerproposed to amend the bill
such that "whetherwe agree or disagree,whetherwe supportor do not supportsuch antidisamendcriminationrights,no such rightsare createdby thisbill. I believe withthisperfecting
ment,Mr. Chairman,thatwe have a chance to put thisissue to restand pass what is basically
Record1988:11404). Many of those who previouslyprotestedthe
a good bill" (Congressional
inclusionofsexual orientationin the bill supportedthisamendment.RepresentativeSwindall,
forexample,proclaimed:
is on
I thought
theterm"sexualorientation"
because:First,
I opposedthebillin thefullcommittee
toincludechildmolestation.
I believe,be construed
itsfacean ambiguity.
Itcould
Itcouldveryeasily,
farbeyondthescopeofwhatI believetheevidenceinthefullcomofa greatmanythings
be inclusive
to
"sexualorientation"
thechangeinthewording
on. Forthatreason,I forone support
focused
mittee
I further
thelanguagethat
orheterosexuality.
themorespecific
support
languageofhomosexuality
the
as togiverights
thatdo notcurrently
statesthatinno wayis thistobe construed
exist;specifically,
Record
on
of
discrimination
based
to
1988:11405)
(Congressional
homosexuality.
right complain
The new language proved acceptable.The HCSA became law in 1990 and the sexual orientation provisionwas notdebated in subsequent HCSA oversighthearings (U.S. Congress1992a,
1994), a reauthorizationhearing (U.S. Congress1996a), or the attendantreporton the HCSA
(U.S. Congress1996b). Althoughthe statusof gays and lesbians as victimsof hate-motivated
violence was contestedto a greaterdegree than was the statusof racial,ethnic,and religious
minorities,it was recognizedand institutionalizedas a key element of the characterof hate
crime law.8 This was accomplished primarilythroughdiscursivetacticssustained by social
movement representativesas they convinced legislatorsto write law that representedthe
interestsof theirconstituency(ies).
Both insiderand outsiderclaimsmakersrenderedseeminglydisparateand dissimilarphenomena comparable.Legislatorsand activistsalike engaged in categorizationwork thatdesignated "the people-category"in a way that linked the new innovation (i.e., the sexual
orientationprovision)withthe previouslyacceptedsocialpolicy(i.e., the race,religion,and ethnicityprovision),thisaddingnew victims(i.e., gaysand lesbians)to the listofpreviouslyestablishedvictims(i.e., racial,ethnic,and religiousminorities).The particulargroundsforframing
these dimensionsof social lifeas comparablevaried,but it was generallyaccomplishedin two
ways, each of which revealsa particulartypeof linkingas a strategyofpersuasion.
First,the commonalityofacceptedprovisionswas located in a substantive,policyrelevant
dimensionof social life.For example, RepresentativeStudds observed: "the reason thatrace,
8. Later, when the HCSEA was introduced,debated, and enacted, the provision for sexual orientationwent
uncontested (see, forexample, U.S. Congress 1992a; 1992d), just as the establishmentof race, religion,and ethnicity
was uncontestedthroughoutthe historyof the HCSA. More recently,it is goinguncontestedin the currentpiece of legislation being debated in the Senate, the Hate Crimes PreventionAct (S. 1529). This is importantto note insofaras
problemsin
domain expansion effortsare not always successful:"claimantsusually begin theircampaignsby typifying
oftenchallenging
especiallycompellingways. Domain expansion extends the claims into more controversialterritory,
existingarrangements"(Best 1990:85).

ManagingDifferences
religion,ethnicityand sexual orientationare in thisbill is thatso faras we know, and thatis
the key phrase,so faras we know,these are the principalcategoriesof such acts of hate. That
is what the testimonybeforethe committeerevealed" (Congressional
Record1988:11406). Similarly,othersargued that the various statuscharacteristics-race,religion,ethnicity,and sexual orientation-were comparable because all were ascribed, ratherthan achieved, social
statuses.For example,RepresentativeBryantobserved:"prejudiceand hate-motivatedcrimes
were motivatedby prejudice toward individualsforbeing what they innatelyare" (Congressional Record1988:11405). This view makes ascribed status the groundsfor equivalence. In
contrast,those contestingthe inclusion of the sexual orientationprovision argued that
"homosexuality"or "gayand lesbian"is not equivalentto "black,""Jew,"or "Arab-American"
because the formeris an achieved status-an "affinity
Dangroup"accordingto Representative
nemeyer (U.S. Congress1988a:12) or a "lifestylechoice" according to Senators Hatch and
Helms (Congressional
Record1990a)-while the latteris construedas an innate,apoliticizedindividual characteristic,
somethingbeyondan individual'srealmof choice or volition.
The second way comparabilityis achieved or contestedis by referencing
the spiritof preas
viouslyestablishedlaw, especiallycivilrightslaw, and framingcertainstatuscharacteristics
commensuratewithit;the linkis betweenestablishedand innovativelaw. For example,Victoria
Toensing,Deputy AssistantAttorneyGeneral, CriminalDivision stated "[I]t is importantto
note thatthe conductprohibitedby thislegislationis covered,in part,by existingfederallaw"
(U.S. Congress
1985a:50). In contrast,RepresentativeDannemeyerobjectedto the inclusionof
crimesmotivatedby prejudiceon the basis of sexual orientationon the groundsthatdoing so
"will adopt as a matterof public policysexual orientationon a par withwhat we have traditionallybroughtwithinthe protectedclasses of the 1964 Civil RightsAct,namely,race, reliRecord1990b:1425). From his point of view, such a move
gion, and ethnicity"(Congressional
would "changethe basic definitionof the 1964 Civil RightsAct to include a new statusthat
would have the dignityofbeingwithinthe proscription[sic] ofthe Act" (quoted in Fernandez
1991:276). This move would, accordingto RepresentativeGekas, ensure "we were wading
into dangerouswaterswhen we were attemptingto raise the homosexuals to a constitutionally guaranteed or protectedclass which was not in accord with race, creed, and color, as
Record1989:13542). In
already articulatedin the Civil RightsAct of 1964" (Congressional
response, RepresentativeFrank insistedthat the integrityof the Civil RightsAct of 1964
would not be harmed:
I wouldpointoutthatmeetsthesuggestion
thatthisbillsomehowputshomosexuality
on thesame
basisas religion,
etceteras.
As a factualmatter,
itneverdid,and doesnot,becauseunder
ethnicity,
ourlawyoumaybringan antidiscrimination
suitin housingorinemployment
orinotherareaswith
a Federalcontractor
ifyouare discriminated
or race.You may
againstbasedon religion,
ethnicity,
notunderexisting
law do thaton thebasisofhomosexuality.
Record
(Congressional
1988:11406)
In the end, discursivemoves arguingthatexpandingthe domain ofthe law was fundamentally
consistentwiththe qualitiesand characteristics
ofpreviouslyrecognizedlegal subjectsor previously legitimatedand institutionalized
legal terrainprovedsuccessful.
Legitimating"Gender" as a Status Provisionin Hate CrimeLaw

Once race, religion,ethnicity,
and sexual orientationwere inscribedinto hate crimelaw,
genderfollowed.Genderwas firstmentionedas a legitimateprovisionin 1986 by Representative Oakar duringa hearingon "Ethnically-Motivated
Violence AgainstArab-Americans"(U.S.
Congress1986b), however, it was not until two years later that Congressbegan to seriously
considergenderas a statusprovisionin hate crimelegislation;and, it was not until 1994 that
gender found a place in federalhate crime law. How this occurredis instructivebecause it
pointsto a different
processthroughwhich domain expansion and attendantvictimdifferentiation can occur.

561
562
JENNESS
In the early 1990s, the VAWAwas an innovativeidea. One reporterdescribedit as a
"novel approach" to violence againstwomen thatwas "virtuallyunthinkableby mainstream
politiciansjust a few yearsago" (Rabin 1994:8A). In the firstcongressionalhearingon "Legislation to Reduce the GrowingProblem of Violence AgainstWomen" (U.S. Congress1990a),
SenatorJosephBiden, Jr.,the bill's chiefsponsor,itemizedthreegoals of the VAWA:"The first
goal is to tryto make streetsa littlebit saferforwomen; the second goal is to make their
homes a littlebitsafer;and, the thirdgoal is to protecttheircivilrights"(U.S. Congress
1990a:2,
3, 4). To meet the firstand second goals,the VAWAallocated over 1.6 billiondollarsforeducation, rape crisishotlines,trainingof justice personnel,victimservices(especiallysheltersfor
victimsof battery),and special units of police and prosecutorsto deal with crimesagainst
women. To meet the thirdgoal, TitleIII ofthe Actprovidesa civilremedyfor"gendercrimes":
inviolation
biascrimes
TheCongress
findsthat(1) crimesmotivated
genderconstitute
bythevictim's
a civil
lawprovides
discrimination
onthebasisofgender;(2) current
tobe freefrom
ofthevictim's
right
on thestreet
butnotforgendercrimescommitted
in theworkplace,
remedyforcrimescommitted
andinthehome;and (3) StateandFederallawsdo notadequately
protect
againstthebiaselementof
whichseparatesthesecrimesfromactsofrandomviolence,nordo theyadequately
gendercrimes,
theirinterests.
to vindicate
theopportunity
1990b:23)
(U.S.Congress
providevictims
In essence, TitleIII of the Act entitlesvictimsto compensatoryand punitivedamages through
the federalcourtsfora crimeof violence ifit is motivated,at least in part,by animus toward
the victim'sgender.This allowance implicitlyacknowledgesthat some, if not most,violence
againstwomen is not gender-neutral;instead,it establishesthe possibilitythatviolence motivated by genderanimus is a propersubjectforcivilrightsaction.
TitleIII of the VAWApositionedselectcrimesagainstwomen as equivalentto acts of vionational origin,religion,and sexual orientation:
lence based on race, ethnicity,
Title3, calledCivilRightsforWomen,wouldmakesexualviolencea violationoffederalcivilrights
middleand end ofthe legislation,"
law. "Thisis the beginning,
rape,
saysBiden.In reclassifying
theprovision
wouldwriteintolaw the
as biascrimes,
felonies
andothergender-based
wife-beating,
viewofrapeas a sociallyembeddedinstitution.
1993:14)
(TheNewRepublic
From the point of view of the VAWAand itssupporters,the truenatureof rape, domesticviolence, and other formsof violence against women is akin to a civil rightsviolation;accordingly,these acts ofviolence are akin to otherformsof hate crime:"the purpose ofTitle III is to
crimesagainstwomen on the same footingas otherbias crimes"(Kelly
put gender-motivated
and Long 1992:287).
Testimonypresented at multiple hearings on the VAWA (U.S. Congress1990a, 1990c,
1991a, 1991b, 1992b, 1993a, 1993c, 1993d) and reflectedin the associated congressional
1990b, 1991c, 1992c, 1993b, 1993e) revealedthatsupportforTitleIII was
reports(U.S. Congress
based less on directpressurefromthose engagingin collectiveaction,and more on the previously establishedlogic used to justifythe statusprovisionsnow taken forgrantedin the HCSA
and the HCSEA. That argumentinvolvedseeinghate crimesas acts ofdiscrimination,
involving
of specificindividuals,but also ofa broadersocial groupthe victimsrepnot only victimization
resent. At this point in the developmentof federalhate crime law, this notion was easily
extendedto women's victimization.
Supportersmaintainedthatactsofviolenceagainstwomen
individuals;instead,some ofthe mostcommon
were not merelyprivateinjuriesto unfortunate
as
formsof violence against women, such
rape and domesticviolence, are essentiallyhate
crimes-violent sexism-that warrantfederalcivilrightsprotection.SenatorBiden explained:
"one of the thingswe're tryingto do in the ViolenceAgainstWomen Act is to make it a policy
ofthe countrythatrapesare hate crimescommittedagainstwomen, crimesofviolencedirected
at one groupbased on theirgender.That is why it makes a civilrightsvioladisproportionately
tion" (U.S. Congress1990a:36). Thus, the rationaleunderlyingTitle III was that harassment,
intimidation,and assault directedat women assumes a particularlyoffensive,dangerous,and

ManagingDifferences
sociallydisruptivecharacterwhen motivatedby animus based on gender,analogous to the disruptioncaused by otherhate crimes.That advocates employedthisargumentand thatit was
largelyuncontestedsuggeststhe logicofthe argumentitselfhad alreadyachieved legitimacy.
the redefinition
ofgenderviolencerequiredto convertacts such as rape into
Interestingly,
hate crimesdid not evoke much debate,especiallycomparedto the magnitudeand intensityof
the debatesoverthe sexual orientation
provisionin the HCSA. In sharpcontrastto the arguments
made to exclude the genderfromthe HCSA,9some hearingson the VAWA(U.S. Coneffectively
gress1993a, 1993c) featuredno oppositionaltestimonyand the remaininghearings,reports,and
committeeprintsrelatedto theVAWAmanifestverylittleevidenceofcontestation
overincluding
the statusof "gender"in hate crime.
The minimalresistanceto TittleIII of the VAWAwas expressedin a handfulofways, each
easily addressed and subsequentlydismissedby legislatorswithoutthe testimonyof outside
claimsmakers(i.e., representativesfromwomen's organizations).For example, some argued
thatwhile it is appropriateto includegenderin hate crimelaws, it was nonethelesssimplynot
feasibleto do so. In particular,some believedthatincludinggenderwould make the conceptof
hate crimetoo cumbersome,ifnot entirelyimpossible,since violentcrimesagainstwomen are
so pervasive.Second, some arguedthatnot all acts ofviolence againstwomen fitthe definition
of a hate crimebecause: a) women are frequentlyacquainted withtheirattackerswhile other
victimsof bias-violence are not, and/orb) statisticallyspeaking,violence against men is as
common, ifnot morecommon,thanviolenceagainstwomen. Third,in lightofa reportsubmitted by the U.S. Supreme Court,some suggestedthatthe bill mightburden the Federal courts
of Title III were
unnecessarily.Fourth and finally,concerns about the constitutionality
expressed(see, forexample, U.S.Congress
1992b). These objectionswere dispelledby demonstrations of the feasibilityof collectingdata on bias-motivatedviolence against women, the
identification
of commonalitiesbetween gender-basedviolence and otherformsof (now) recforthecivilrightsremedy,and the
ognizedhate crime,the creationofa constitutional
justification
ofthebill'swordingbeforeit became law.'o
modification
Notably,objectionsto the incorporationof genderwere notanchoredin the typesof concernsand expressedwith the same logic thatdominatedtestimonyand debate about "sexual
orientation"in the HCSA hearings.For example,therewas no debate about the legitimacyof
sex as a statusin need of protectionand legal consideration,in large partbecause the legitihad long since gained legal
macy of "sex" as a line of stratification
resultingin discrimination
9. Priorto passage ofthe HCSA, the Coalitionon Hate Crimescontemplatedrecommendingincludinggenderas a
protectedstatusin the HCSA, but eventuallydecided againstit fora varietyof reasons. First,some membersof the Coalition believed that the inclusion of gender would delay, if not completelyimpede, the timelypassage of the HCSA.
Second, some membersofthe Coalitionargued thatincludinggenderwould open the door forage, disability,
positionin
a labor dispute,partyaffiliation,
and/ormembershipin the armed forcesprovisions.Third,some believed thatincluding
genderwould make enactmentof the HCSA too cumbersome,ifnot entirelyimpossible,since violentcrimesagainst
women are so pervasive.Fourth,and related,othersargued thatnot all acts of violence againstwomen fitthe definition
of a hate crime.Fifth,some membersof the Coalitionargued thatexpandingthe categoriesof officially
recognizedhate
crimesto include genderwould not improveupon currenteffortsto collectofficialdata on rape and domesticviolence.
Focusingon feasibility,
opponentsfearedthataddinggenderas a victimcategorywould simplyoverwhelmthe data collection effortsof law enforcementagencies and human rightsorganizationsthat trackhate crimes.Related, the large
numberofcrimesagainstwomen would overshadowstatisticson hate crimesagainstmembersof othergroups.The failureto include genderin the HCSA, as well as otherkey pieces of legislationand policydesignedto address violence,did
not go unrecognized(Jenness1995a; Jennessand Broad 1994, 1997; Levin 1994).
10. A significant
portionof one ofthe longesthearingson the VAWAwas devoted to determiningwhetherTitleIII
of the VAWAis constitutional(U.S. Congress 1992b). Prior to passage, and in light of congressionaltestimonyand
debates, the VAWA'swordingwas altered in threeways. First,several findingswere added to the bill to make clear the
basis and purposesofthe civilrightsremedy.Second, the term"overwhelming,"as a way of definingthe level ofanimus
required to qualifyas hate-motivated,was omittedoftenit was deemed unnecessaryand restrictive.Third,language
crime to eliminate the
enumeratingvarious crimeswas eliminatedfromthe originaldefinitionof "gender-motivated"
negative implicationthat only these crimeswould give rise to a cause of action under Title III. For a review of these
changes,as well as thejustificationsthatunderliethem,see U.S. Congress(1991la).

563
564
JENNESS
and extralegalcurrency.Also, objectionswere not incessantlyexpressedor hotlydebated. In

fact,the testimonyand debates that concern the VAWA reveal tacit agreementabout the
importanceof the Act. Indeed, Biden acknowledgethe lack of oppositionwhen he said "I am
in the unusual positionhere of tryingto build a case againstmy own bill because I want the
recordto reflect-I want it to be an honestrecord"(U.S. Congress
1990a: 107).
Also in contrastto earlierefforts
to incorporatesexual orientationinto federalhate crime
law, outside claimsmakers,in this case SMOs concerned with the status and welfare of
women, played a minimalrole. The mostinfluentialgroup,the NationalVictimCenter(NVC),
is a professional,broad-based,public interestorganizationmore than a directchannel for
aggrievedminoritygroups (i.e., people of color,Jews,gays and lesbians,women, etc. [Broad
and Jenness 1996; Jennessand Broad 1997; Weed 1995]). Thus, unlike the HCSA and the
HCSEA, the VAWAwas formulatedwithinan organizationlargelyremoved fromthe politics
of specificconstituenciesof potentialand actual victims.This "top down" approach to lawmaking,coupled withthe factthata templateforhate crimelaw had alreadybeen constructed
and legitimated,ensured thatthe furtherexpansion of "people-category"associated with the
social problem of hate crime was not contingentupon the type of categorizationwork
describedin the previoussection.
Indeed, thereis no evidenceto suggestthatfeministsponsoredanti-violenceprojectswere
centralin the initiationand earlyformulationofthe VAWA(Broad and Jenness1996; Jenness
and Broad 1997); thus,theydid not play a crucialrole in linkinggenderto the conceptofhate
crime. Not until 1993, well afterthe VAWAhad been conceived and a just a year beforeit
became law, did representativesfromnationally-knownfeministorganizationstestifyin federal hearingson hate crime.Then, PatriciaIreland (PresidentofNOW), Sally Goldfarb(Senior
StaffAttorneyforNOW's Legal Defense and Education Fund), and Eleanor Smeal (President
of the FeministMajority),offeredsupportivetestimonyin hearingsheld by the Subcommittee
1993d:113).
on Civiland ConstitutionalRights,Committeeon the Judiciary(U.S. Congress
While the supportof these groups comes as no surprisegiven the women movement's
historicalcommitmentto combatingviolence against women, the factthat it emergedfairly
late in the historyof federallawmaking around hate crime is instructive.Both state and
national feministcivil rightsorganizationswere "notablyabsent" fromoriginaland subsequent discussionsof the VAWA(Broad and Jenness1996; Jennessand Broad 1997). With the
and consciousexception of a few state coalitionsthat initiatedand sponsoredletter-writing
ness-raising campaigns, the state and national organizations devoted surprisinglyfew
resourcesand attendantmobilizationto the VAWAuntil afterthe Act had received enough
supportto marshalpredictionsof its imminentpassage: "the VAWAand all that it represents
has become an importantelementin the institutionalenvironmentof the organizationalfield
under study [feministsponsoredand sustainedanti-violenceprojects],one thathas beenexterand imposed
totheorganizational
and presented
developed
field,ratherthaninternally
nallygenerated
environment"
on thelargersocio-political
(Jennessand Broad 1997:162 [emphasis in the original]). In other words,the inclusion of gender in federalhate crimelaw was not contingent
upon the presenceof outside claimsmakersand the accomplishmentof the typeof categorization work describedin the previoussectionon sexual orientation."
Discussion and Conclusion

Only a littleover a decade ago, U.S. RepresentativeConyers,Jr.proclaimedthat "hate
crimes motivatedby intolerance need to be distinguishedfromother crimes motivatedby
11. Ramirez, Soysal, and Shanahan's (1997) research found that nations adopting women's rightslater in the
adoption period under study,1890-1990, were less influencedby protractednational strugglesand the local social mobilizationof women than nationsadoptingwomen's rightsearlierin the adoption period.

ManagingDifferences
otherfactors"(U.S. Congress
1988b:8). In largepartbecause of the anti-hatecrimemovement
in the U.S. and subsequent lawmakingby legislators,violence motivatedby bigotryis now
fromother formsof violent conduct,both in legal and
recognizedas qualitativelydifferent
Hate
has
discourse.
crime
been distinguishedfrom "normal" crime, primarily
extra-legal
because of activist,media, and legislativeattentiondevotedto the perpetrators'
motivation,as
well as the sociallyrecognizablecharacteristics
of the victims(Best 1999; Jennessand Grattet
2000). As Laurence Tribe,Professorof ConstitutionalLaw at HarvardUniversity,testified:
"nothing in the U.S. Constitutionprevents the Governmentfrompenalizing with added
severitythose crimesdirectedagainstpeople or theirpropertybecause oftheirrace, color,religion, national origin,ethnicity,
genderor sexual orientation,and nothingin the Constitution
requires that this list be infinitelyexpanded" (U.S. Congress1992d:7). So, what distinctions
were made and how were those distinctionsmade? And what can the processofmakingthese
distinctionstellus about social problemsand how theirattendantvictimsare constructed?
Since 1985, everyU.S. Congresshas devoted attentionto the task of respondingto hate
motivated-violencein the U.S. This has resultedin hundredsof hours of congressionalhearings and debates,as well as threenew federallaws. The legislativehistoriesof the threelaws
thatare in place-the Hate CrimesStatistics
Act,the ViolenceAgainstWomenAct,and the Hate
Crimes SentencingEnhancementAct-reveal that the contentof federalhate crimelaw, at
least in termsof select status provisions,has been shaped by interrelatedprocesses: social
movementmobilization,categorizationwork by both insiderand outsiderclaimsmakersthat
is bestcharacterizedas "linking"strategiesofpersuasion,domain expansion thatresultsin differentiationof victims,and institutionalization.Each of these processes is institutionally
qualifiedand temporallybound.
Summarized in Table 2, the empiricalanalysis in this work details how, throughthe
inclusion of statusprovisionsin hate crime law (i.e., "race, religion,and ethnicity,""sexual
orientation,"and "gender"),the substantivecharacterof federallaw was shaped in racialized,
sexualized, and genderedways. Earlyclaims fromlocal, regional,and state SMOs focusedon
the scope and consequences of race, religion,and ethnicity-based
violence. Growingawareness ofsuch violencebecame groundsforpromotingfederalhate crimelegislationby a limited
number of SMOs and theirrepresentatives.This activitycementeda trioof statuses-"race,
religion,and ethnicity"-as the anchoringprovisionsofall hate crimelaw. This occurredwithout contestationover the legitimacyof these statusprovisions,which had alreadybeen legitimated by otherpolities(i.e., states).
The characterof hate crime law was reshaped when the law's domain expanded to
include additionalprovisions(see Table 2). Shortlyafterfederalhate crimelaw was envisioned,
Table 2 * Social MovementOrganizationMobilizationand theAdoptionof SelectStatus
Provisionsin Federal Hate CrimeLaw, 1985-1998
StatusProvisions
SMO
Mobilization
Yes
Proposed
Early(pre1990)
Adopted
Late (post1990)
Race/Religion/
Ethnicity,
Orientation
Octogenarians,
Union Members,
Children,Elderly,
Late(post1990)
Race/Religion/
Ethnicity,Sexual
No
Early(pre1990)
SexualOrientation
Gender,
Disabilities
PoliceOfficers

Gender,
Disabilities
565
566
JENNESS
proposals were made by outsiderclaimsmakers,most notablysocial movement representahate crimevictimsby adding "sexual orientation"to the list of
tives,to furtherdifferentiate
provisionsin federalhate crimelaw. Throughdirectand sustainedtestimony,SMO representativeswere able to bestow empiricalcredibility
upon the violence connectedwiththisprovision (i.e., antigayviolence). In addition,they successfullyengaged in discursivetacticsthat
renderedthe meaningof sexual orientationmore similarto than dissimilarfromthe meanings
already attached to race, religion,and ethnicity.By successfullyengaging in these linking
strategiesof persuasion, SMOs proved crucial to the expansion of hate crime law to cover
sexual orientation.In other words, the addition of sexual orientationwas contingentupon
the presenceand viabilityof direct,sustainedsocial movementmobilizationcoupled withparticulardiscursivemoves that prove decisivein social problemstalk,especially"congressional
talk" (Chock 1995). While the domain of hate law expanded to include more injuredpeople,
between typesof crimevictimsin the people-category.
it did so by furtherdifferentiating
In contrast,other provisionsinitiallyrecommendedfor inclusion in the law, but not
added to the bill priorto its passage, did notattractsignificant,sustained social movement
mobilizationin congressionalhearings.For example, priorto the passage of the HCSA, some
legislatorsargued: "we believe thatthe measure does not go farenough and include violence
by and against union members"(U.S. Congress1989:7). Since hearingswere not held on this
type of bias-motivatedviolence (see Table 1), therewas no structuralopportunityforrepreof the problemand engage in the
sentativesfromunions to establishthe empiricalcredibility
was not
categorizationwork requiredto legitimatethisprovision;as a result,union affiliation
adopted as a provisionin federalhate crimelaw. As Table 2 reveals,this same patternapplies
to claims about children,the elderly,and police officers:all were statusprovisionsproposed
earlyin federallawmaking,but neveradoptedas core elementsoffederalhate crimelaw.
federalhate crimelegislation,however,the place
Laterin the processof institutionalizing
and importanceof directsocial movementmobilizationand discursivestrategiesthatlink eledeclinedas institumentsofpolicy,in thiscase by promotingsimilarity(ies)over difference(s),
tionalized logics become more pronounced. For comparativepurposes, an examination of
the legislativehistoryof "gender"as a provisionin federalhate crimelaw revealsthat laterin
the historyof federallawmakingaround hate crime,the importanceof collectiveaction, as
measured through the presence of SMOs at congressionalhearings and in congressional
debates and reports,declined. Once a corpusof hate crimelaw was establishedand selectprovisions cementedin law, new provisions-in this case gender-were adopted withoutdirect
and
pressureapplied by sustainedmobilizationfromrelevantSMOs and theirrepresentatives,
despitethe factthatit was purposelyexcluded earlierin the institutionalprocess.
While many federalhearingson violence againstwomen have been held, theywere not
initiatednor sustainedby feministSMOs. Instead,as lawmakerscoalesced around the meaning of hate crimelaw in previoushearings,establishedpolicypedigreeswere institutionalized.
This, in turn, shaped the subsequent domain expansion of the law by distinguishingyet
anotherelementof the people-category,in thiscase gender.This occurredwithoutmuch fanfareand withoutrelevantSMOs engagingin decisive categorizationwork,but in lightof the
factthatgender-like race and religion-was alreadya standardsubjectof federaldiscrimination law. That is, the sense thatgenderas a legal subjectparallelsrace has been commonplace
forover a quarterof a century.
This pattern,particularto the later phase of lawmaking,is furtherevidenced by the hisprohibita detailed
provisionin hate crimelaw. Althoughspace constraints
toryofthe "disability"
analysis,disabilitywas added to both the reauthorizationof the HCSA and the HCSEA. The
changingcharacterof the law along these lines occurreddespitethe factthatfederallawmakers have never held a hearingon violence directedat those with disabilitiesand no contestation occurredover thisprovision(see Table 1). Moreover,the officialrecordsof federallevel
fromthe disabilitiesmovementhave yet to
hate crimelawmakingreveal thatrepresentatives
even make an appearance and offertestimonyrelatedto federalhate crimelegislation.Regard-

ManagingDifferences
less, disabilities,and thus personswith disabilities,have founda home in hate crimelegislation,albeit ratherlate in the institutionalization
process(see Table 2). Throughthe inclusionof
disabilitiesin federalhate crimelaw, anotherclass of hate crimevictimswas designated,thus
the people-categorycommonlyreferred
to as hate crimevictimis even further
expandedand, at
the same time,differentiated.
Here too, this occurredin lightof the factthat disability-like
race, religion,and gender-was already a standardsubject of federaldiscriminationlaw, in
largepartbecause of the earlierpassage of the AmericanswithDisabilitiesActin 1990.
Taken together,these findingssuggest a number of underlyingprocesses that can be
hypothesizedto operate at a generallevel and across various campaignsto constructpeoplecategories(Loseke 1993), especiallywhen thereis littlecompetitionover problemdefinition
(Bursteinand Bricher1997). First,the success ofsocial movementmobilizationas itinterfaces
with lawmakingand translatesinto law is contingentupon a particulartypeof categorization
work:effective
linkingstrategiesofpersuasion.Second, social movementmobilizationis more
crucialto the constructionof "people-categories"earlyin the historyofthe constructionofthe
That is, earlyin the naturalhistoryof a social problem,mesolevel social
"condition-category."
movementmobilizationinterfaceswith microlevelprocessesof categorizationworkto determine the contentof the people-categories.
Third,as institutional
templatesdevelop, large scale
institutionalprocesseseclipse mesolevel social movement-relatedprocessesto determinethe
contentofthe people-category.In otherwords,later
increasinglyexpanded and differentiated
in the naturalhistoryofa social problem,largerprocessesofinstitutionalization
interfacewith
previouslyestablishedlegal templatesto determinethe contentof people-categories.Finally,
thiswork suggeststhatan exclusivefocuson broad structuralimperativesor "moralentrepreneurs" and lobbyingactivitiesprovidesonly a limitedview of how and why legislatorstake
action,what kinds of crimepolicytheydesign,and what typesof injuriesare recognizedby
law. To morefullyunderstandthisprocess,itis usefulto considerthe timingofeach oftheseelementsdescribedabove as theyare enactedin a largerinstitutional
process,withthe relationship
betweendiscursivepracticesand the largerinstitutional
environmentchangingovertime.
these patterns.
Obviously,a case studysuch as thisone cannot verifyor rigorouslyfalsify
More studiesof the unfoldingmeaningsassociatedwith social problemsin general,and legally
definedvictimsin particular,
are needed to determinewhetherdifferent
typesoflaw, victims,and
socialproblemsshow different
tendenciesovertime.A comparisonoffindingsacrossstudieslike
thisone would determineifgeneralizations
about the processespositedhere can be supported.
References
Anti-Defamation
League
1988 HateCrimesStatutes:
A ResponsetoAnti-Semitism,
Vandalism
andViolentBigotry.
New
York:The Anti-DefamationLeague of B'nai B'rith.

1989 Audit of Anti-SemiticIncidents.New York:The Anti-DefamationLeague of B'nai
B'rith.
Arnold,R. Douglas
1990 The Logic of CongressionalAction.New Haven, Conn.: Yale UniversityPress.
Berk,Richard,ElizabethA. Boyd, and Karl M. Hamner
1992
"Thinkingmore clearlyabout hate-motivatedcrimes."In Hate Crimes:Confronting
ViolenceAgainstLesbians and Gay Men, eds. GregoryHerek and Kevin Berrill,123-143.
NewburyPark,Calif.:Sage Publications.
Best, Joel
1990 ThreatenedChildren:Rhetoricand ConcernAbout Child Victims.Chicago,Ill.: University
of Chicago Press.
1999 Random Violence. How We Talk About New Crimesand New Victims.Berkeley,Calif.:
Universityof CaliforniaPress.
1990

567
568
JENNESS
Beuchler,Steven M.
Women's Movements in the United States. New Brunswick,N.J.:RutgersUniversity
1990
Press.
Broad, Kendal, and ValerieJenness
"The institutionalizing
work of contemporaryanti-violenceagainstwomen campaignsin
1996
the U.S.: Mesolevel social movementactivismand the productionof culturalforms."
Research in Social Movements,Conflictsand Change 19:75-123.
Burstein,Paul
1991
"Policydomains: Organization,culture,and policyoutcomes." Annual Review of Sociology
17:327-350.
Burstein,Paul, and Marie Bricher
1997
"Problemdefinitionand public policy:Congressionalcommitteesconfrontwork,family,
and gender,1945-1990." Social Forces 75:135-169.
Chilton,Paul
1987
"Metaphor,euphemism,and the militarizationof language." CurrentResearch on Peace
and Violence 10:7-19.
Chock, PhyllisPease
1991 "'Illegal aliens' and 'opportunity':Myth-makingin congressionaltestimony."American
Ethnologist18:279-294.
1994
"Remakingand unmaking'citizen' in policy-makingtalkabout immigration."PoLAR:
Politicaland Legal AnthropologyReview 17:45-55.
1995
"Ambiguityin policydiscourse:Congressionaltalk about immigration."Policy Sciences
28:165-184.
CongressionalRecord
1985
(July22):19840-19844.
1988
(May 18):11392-11410.
1989
(June 27):13541-13551.
1990a (February8):1067-1092.
1990b (April3):1423-1426.
Ferguson,Kathy
1984 The FeministCase AgainstBureaucracy.Philadelphia,Pa.: Temple UniversityPress.
Fernandez,Joseph
1991
"Bringinghate crimesinto focus." Harvard Civil Rights-CivilLibertiesLaw Review
26:261-292.
Foucault, Michel
1979
Disciplineand Punish: The Birthof the Prison.New York:VintageBooks.
Frohman,Lisa
and discordantlocales: Reproducingrace, class, and genderideologiesin
1997
"Convictability
prosecutorialdecisionmaking."Law & SocietyReview 31:531-555.
Galliher,JohnE, and John.R. Cross
1983 Morals LegislationWithoutMorality:The Case of Nevada. New Brunswick,N.J.:Rutgers
UniversityPress.
Gamson, WilliamA.
1992 TalkingPolitics.New York:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Gerhards,Jiirgen,and DieterRucht
"Mesomobilization:Organizingand framingin two protestcampaignsin West Germany."
1992
AmericanJournalof Sociology98:555-595.
Glaser,Barry,and Anselm Strauss
1967 The Discoveryof GroundedTheory.Chicago,Ill.: Aldine.
Grattet,Ryken,ValerieJenness,and Theodore Curry
of hate crimelaw in the United States, 1978"The homogenizationand differentiation
1998
1995: Innovation and diffusionin the criminalizationofbigotry."AmericanSociological
Review 63:286-307.
Hagan, John
"The legislationof crimeand delinquency:A reviewof theory,method,and research."Law
1980
& SocietyReview 14:603-628.

Managing Differencesand Making Legislation

Hilgartner,Stephen,and Charles Bosk
1988
"The riseand fallof social problems:A public arenas model." AmericanJournalof
Sociology94:53-78.
Holstein,JamesA.
1993
Court OrderedInsanity:InterpretivePracticeand InvoluntaryCommitment.New York:
Aldine de Gruyter.
Holstein,James.A., and Gale Miller
1990
"Rethinkingvictimization:An interactionalapproach to victimology."SymbolicInteraction
13:103-122.
Ibarra,Peter,and JohnKitsuse
1993
"Vernacularconstituentsof moral discourse:An interactionist
proposal forthe studyof
social problems."In Constructionist
Controversies:Issues in Social ProblemsTheory,eds.
Gale Millerand JamesA. Holstein,22-54. New York:Aldine de Grutyer,Inc.
Jacobs,James,and KimberlyPotter
1998
Hate Crimes:CriminalLaw and IdentityPolitics.New York:OxfordUniversityPress.
Jayyusi,Lena
1984 Categorizationand the Moral Order.Boston,Mass.: Routledge& Kegan Paul.
Jenness,Valerie
1995a "Hate crimesin the United States:The transformation
of injuredpersonsinto victimsand
the extensionof victimstatusto multipleconstituencies."In Images and Issues: Typifying
ContemporarySocial Problems,ed. JoelBest,213-237. New York:Aldine de Gruyter.
1995b "Social movementgrowth,domain expansion,and framingprocesses:The gay/lesbian
movementand violence againstgays and lesbians as a social problem."Social Problems
47:145-170.
Jenness,Valerie,and Kendal Broad
1994
"Anti-violenceactivismand the (in)visibilityof genderin the gay/lesbianmovementand
the women's movement."Gender& Society8:402-423.
1997 Hate Crimes:New Social Movementsand the Politicsof Violence. Hawthorne,N.Y.: Aldine
deGruyter,Inc.
Jenness,Valerie,and RykenGrattet
1996
"The criminalizationof hate: A comparisonof structuraland polityinfluenceson the
passage of 'bias-crime'legislationin the U.S." SociologicalPerspectives39:129-154.
2000
Buildingthe Hate CrimePolicyDomain: From Social Movement Concept to Law
EnforcementPractice.New York:Russell Sage Foundation.
Kelly,Andrea Ines, and Elisa Long
1992
"Violenceagainstwomen: Proposed legislation."Texas Journalof Women and the Law
1:285-290.
Kingdon,John
1984 Agendas,Alternatives,and Public Policies. Boston,Mass.: Little,Brown.
Klandermans,Bert
1992
"The social constructionof protestand multiorganizational
fields."In Frontiersin Social
MovementTheory,eds. Aldon Morrisand Carol McClurgMueller,77-103. New Haven,
Conn.: Yale UniversityPress.
Lawrence,FrederickM.
1999 PunishingHate: Bias CrimesUnderAmericanLaw. Cambridge,Mass.: HarvardUniversity
Press.
Levin,Brian
1994
"Violenceagainstwomen: Is it a hate crime?"Klanwatch IntelligenceReportJune:4-7.
Levin,Jack,and JackMcDevitt
1993 Hate Crimes:The RisingTide of Bigotryand Bloodshed. New York:Plenum Press.
Loseke, Donileen R.
1993
"Constructingconditions,people, morality,and emotion:Expandingthe agenda of
constructionism."
In Constructionist
Controversies:Issues in Social ProblemsTheory,eds.
Gale Millerand JamesA. Holstein,207-216. New York:Aldine de Grutyer,Inc.
Maroney,TerryA.
1998
"The struggleagainsthate crime:Movement at a crossroad."New YorkUniversityLaw
Review 73:564-620.

569
570
JENNESS
Mauss, Armand,and ValerieJenness
2000
"Social problems."In The Encyclopediaof Sociology,eds. EdgarBorgattaand Marie
Borgatta.New York:MacMillan PublishingCompany.
Miller,Gale, and JamesA. Holstein (eds.)
1993
Constructionist
Controversies:Issues in Social ProblemsTheory.Hawthorne,New York:
Aldine de Gruyter.
Naples, Nancy
1997
"The 'new consensus' on the gendered'social contract':The 1987-1988 U.S. Congressional
Hearingson WelfareReform."Signs:Journalof Women in Cultureand Society22:907945.
New Republic
1993
"Caught in the act." (July12):13-16.
Rabin, Roni
1994
"Anti-crimebill gives women new weapon againstgenderoffenses."The DetroitNews
(August 5):8A.
Rafter,Nicole H.
1990
"The social constructionof crimeand crimecontrol."Journalof Research on Crimeand
Delinquency 27:376-389.
Ramirez,Francisco,Yasemin Soysal,and Suzanne Shanahan
1997
"The changinglogic ofpoliticalcitizenship:Cross-nationalacquisitionof women's suffrage
rights,1890 to 1990." AmericanSociologicalReview 62:735-745.
Rovella, David E.
1994
"Attackon hate crimeis enhanced." National Law Journal(August 29):A1.
Sarat,Austin,and Thomas R. Kearns
1997
"Editorialintroduction."In The Rhetoricof Law, eds. Austin Sarat and Thomas Kearns,
1-27. Ann Arbor,Mich.: The Universityof Michigan.
Silbey,Susan, and AustinSarat
1989
"Dispute processingin law and legal scholarship:From institutionalcritiqueto a
reconsiderationof the juridicalsubject."Denver Law Review 66:437-498.
Snow, David A., and RobertD. Benford
1992
"Masterframesand cyclesofprotest."In Frontiersin Social Movement Theory,eds. Aldon
C. Morrisand Carol McClurgMueller, 133-155. New Haven, Conn.: Yale UniversityPress.
Soule, Sarah, and JenniferEarl
"'All men are createdequal': The differential
1999
protectionof minoritygroupsin hate crime
legislation."Paper presentedat the annual meetingof the American Sociological
Associationin Chicago,Illinois. (August)
Staggenborg,Suzanne
"Social movementcommunitiesand cyclesofprotest:The emergenceand maintenanceofa
1998
local women's movement." Social Problems45:180-204.
Stake, RobertE.
1994
"Case studies."In Handbook of QualitativeResearch,ed. Norman Denzin, 273-285.
Thousand Oaks, Calif.:Sage Publications.
Strauss,Anselm,and JulietCorbin
1994
"Groundedtheorymethodology:An overview."In Handbook of QualitativeResearch,ed.
Norman Denzin, 273-285. Thousand Oaks, Calif.:Sage Publications.U.S. Congress
U.S. Congress
1985a "Crimesagainstreligiouspracticesand property."Washington,D.C.: U.S. Government
PrintingOffice.
1985b "Hate crimesstatisticsact." Washington,D.C.: U.S. GovernmentPrintingOffice.
1985c "Hate CrimesStatisticsAct." Washington,D.C.: U.S. GovernmentPrintingOffice.
1986a "Anti-gayviolence." Washington,D.C.: U.S. GovernmentPrintingOffice.
1986b "Ethnicallymotivatedviolence againstArab Americans."Washington,D.C.: U.S.
GovernmentPrintingOffice.
1987
"Anti-Asianviolence." Washington,D.C.: U.S. GovernmentPrintingOffice.
1988a "Hate CrimesStatisticsAct." Washington,D.C.: U.S. GovernmentPrintingOffice.
1988b "Raciallymotivatedviolence." Washington,D.C.: U.S. GovernmentPrintingOffice.
"Hate CrimesStatisticsAct." Washington,D.C.: U.S. GovernmentPrintingOffice.
1989

Managing Differencesand Making Legislation

1990a "Women and violence, Pt. 1." Washington,D.C.: U.S. GovernmentPrintingOffice.
1990b "The Violence AgainstWomen Act of 1990." Washington,D.C.: U.S. Government.
1990c "Women and violence,Pt. 2." Washington,D.C.: U.S. GovernmentPrintingOffice.Printing
Office.
1991a "Violenceagainstthe women: Victimsof the system."Washington,D.C.: U.S. Government
PrintingOffice.
1991b "The Violence AgainstWomen Act of 1991." Washington,D.C.: U.S. GovernmentPrinting
Office.
1992a "Hate CrimesStatisticsAct." Washington,D.C.: U.S. GovernmentPrintingOffice.
1992b "Violenceagainstthe women: Victimsof the system."Washington,D.C.: U.S. Government
PrintingOffice.
1992c "Violenceagainstthe women: Victimsof the system."Washington,D.C.: U.S. Government
PrintingOffice.
1992d "Hate CrimesSentencingEnhancementAct of 1992." Washington,D.C.: U.S. Government
PrintingOffice.
1993a "Violentcrimesagainstwomen." Washington,D.C.: U.S. GovernmentPrintingOffice.
1993b "The ViolentAgainstWomen Act of 1993." Washington,D.C.: U.S. GovernmentPrinting
Office.
1993c "Violenceagainstwomen: Rightingthe fear."Washington,D.C.: U.S. GovernmentPrinting
Office.
1993d "Crimesof violence motivatedby gender."Washington,D.C.: U.S. GovernmentPrinting
Office.
1993e "ViolentAgainstWomen Act of 1993." Washington,D.C.: U.S. GovernmentPrintingOffice.
1994
"Hate CrimesStatisticsAct." Washington,D.C.: U.S. GovernmentPrintingOffice.
1996a "Reauthorizationof the Hate CrimesStatisticsAct." Washington,D.C.: U.S. Government
PrintingOffice.
1996b "To reauthorizethe Hate CrimesStatisticsAct." Washington,D.C.: U.S. Government
PrintingOffice.
Weed, Frank
1995
Certaintyof Justice:Reformin the CrimeVictimMovement. New York:Aldine.
Woolgar,Steve, and DorothyPawluch
1985
Social Problems32:214-227.
"Ontologicalgerrymandering."
Yin,Robert
1984
Case StudyResearch: Design and Methods. NewburyPark,Calif.:Sage Publications.
Statute Citations
Public Law 101-275
Public Law 103-322

571

Managing Differences and Making Legislation: Social Movements and The Racialization, Sexualization, and Gendering of Federal Hate Crime Law in The U.S

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Managing Differences and Making Legislation: Social Movements and The Racialization, Sexualization, and Gendering of Federal Hate Crime Law in The U.S

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Managing Differences and Making Legislation: Social Movements and the Racialization,

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3097075 .

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.227 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 18:03:14 PM