The Princeton Hate Crime That Wasn’t
By: Warner Todd Huston
The Jena 6 case exploded over night when the Media imagined they had a â€œrace hateâ€ issue on their hands. They did the same with the Duke Rape case. Both cases were later proven not to be a case of a â€œhate crimeâ€ at all and, in the end, werenâ€™t even real crimes. Yet, the media rushed to get these stories on the front pages and on every TV screen. Contrast that coverage with a reported crime that occurred near Princeton University that perfectly fits the definition of a â€œhate crimeâ€ and we found a media that stayed mum not reporting a thing about it.
The reason, of course, is because this victim was a conservative, Christian attacked because he was a conservative Christian — the newsmedia obviously didnâ€™t feel there was anything to talk about.
The Daily Princetonian, the college paper of Princeton University, reported a hate crime on Dec. 15th, the details of which weren’t repeated as a hate crime by any of the mainstream media outlets. This hate crime at first appeared just as vicious, unprovoked and as full of bigotry and, well, hate, as any. But no one touched the tale with a ten-foot pole. Not because it wasn’t really hate, but because it wasn’t the right kind of hate. You see, in Princeton and the MSM hatred of conservatives, Christians doesn’t count much toward hate, though hate it truly appeared to be.
As the story was first reported, a young undergrad named Francisco Nava (class of ’09) was physically attacked in Princeton Township, the Princetonian said. He was repeatedly knocked in the head until he was unconscious it was claimed.
“Eventually I just blacked out,” Nava said in an interview last night. “I don’t remember what happened; I just saw a bunch of white.” When he came to, he said, the two men were still hitting him.
The motive for the attack was thought not to be robbery as Nava’s wallet, cell phone and personal possessions were supposedly not touched by the assailants. But Nava claimed that they did leave him with a sort of parting thought that fits with threats the young man claimed to have received in the weeks before the attack. As they walked away from him, his attackers told him to “Shut the F_ _ k up.”
This wasn’t just any attack, it was claimed. It was an attack that fits the definition of a hate crime. That is because the attackers accosted Mr. Nava because of his involvement in the “socially conservative” organization called the Anscombe Society. Nava said he reached this conclusion because the attackers’ final words matched the line repeated in several threatening letters he had received confronting him on his political ideology. (As reported in the DP earlier in the year.)
Nava said he was sure the assailants “at least had something to do with” threats he has been receiving since mid-October. He pointed out that his assailants’ parting words — “shut the fuck up” — concluded the most recent threat letter he received, an email that arrived Wednesday afternoon.
It would appear, as hate crimes go, that this one would easily fit the bill. But, no news outlet covered the story. No one paid it any attention.
Not only did no one cover it, but even the Daily Princetonian underplayed the tale. Let’s take a look at the school paper’s headline topping this story. “Undergraduate attacked in Township,” it says. Then adds in a sub-head, “Anscombe member had received threats since mid-October.” That’s a pretty mild headline for a case that easily fits the definition of a hate crime, isn’t it? Can we imagine what sort of alarm might infest the Daily Princetonian’s headline should this had been an attack against someone from the so-called women’s studies, or African-American studies departments? If this attack had been against someone who belonged to some such minority club having to do with race or sexual proclivities do you think the DP staff would have been so matter of fact with the headline?
I, for one, do not.
Let’s compare the slight coverage of the Princeton story with that which the so-called Jena 6 received in September of 2007. In that case the beating of a white teen was ignored by the national media for many months with the case only seeing national attention when black kids were arrested for the crime. Then, suddenly it was a “crime” to arrest these kids. The story was so misreported that the issue became a “discrimination” issue against the criminals who perpetrated the beating instead of a story on the beating itself. The crime against the white kid was erased in the minds of the media in their rush to make it an issue of racial discrimination.
Also, we can look at the story of the false accusations that members of the Duke lacrosse team who supposedly gang raped a black exotic dancer. The news was all over this tale yet, as the facts finally came out, it was determined that the woman lied. There was no crime against her. Yet, the news media raced to air this tale.
Like the two tales above, the Princeton story also took a turn from its initial reports. It has come to light that the “victim,” Mr. Nava, has admitted he faked the entire incident. Naturally, now we get the story on the AP, the New York Post and several other outlets. Strangely, not a word was published about this story before the admission, but there was plenty afterwards.
Don’t get me wrong, here as I am not sad that the story wasn’t published as a hate crime when it ended up not being one. I am glad that the news saw the truth before it was so wildly bent out of reality like the other so-called hate crime stories.
Also, I should say Iâ€™m not a supporter of the concept of the hate crime at all, as crime is just as vicious, just as wrong, just as immoral regardless for the “reason” behind it. Crime IS hate. Crime is not hate only when perpetrated against an ethnic minority or sexual predilections, it is hate no matter its target. Crime is hate for society, hate for others’ rights and hate for humanity itself. That is plenty enough hate not to have to one-up it by pretending that minorities are in for even more hate than anyone else when the victim of a crime.
However, my definition of a hate crime is not under discussion here, but that of our politically correct news media as well as on the campuses of our universities and colleges. And, this particular story initially fit their definition of a hate crime to a “T.”
So, the question is, why wasn’t Mr. Navaâ€™s case reported as a hate crime and jumped on as quickly as the other cases weâ€™ve discussed? And, of course, the answer is that Mr. Nava is a conservative and a Christian. So, the story was ignored until it came to light that Nava made it all up.
It stands to reason that the story was initially ignored because it just didn’t have the glamour of fitting in with the MSM’s definition of a real crime. In cases like this the victim “probably deserved it” would be the refrain throughout newsrooms the country over. Nava IS an evil conservative, Christian who was probably oppressing someone, somewhere, right? Who can blame any upstanding citizen for whipping the tar outta him, anyway, our more “caring” more “civilized” newsmakers… I mean reporters… surely said to each other when they first heard the tale. This sis the bias within the newsrooms that such stories face.
Whites suffering “hate crimes” just aren’t interesting to our nation’s newsrooms. Crimes like the young man whose beating set off the Jena 6 case or the young white couple that were brutally raped and murdered by black assailants in Tennessee will find no sympathy from our newsmakers. And this is the reason no one heard of Mr. Nava until he revealed his lies about the attack.
It is unlikely that Princeton University would have paid Mr. Nava much attention should his attack have been real and it is sure they wouldn’t have done a thing to help him. But, now that he has been exposed as a liar… well who can doubt that they will be all over it now?