Hate crimes, terrorism, and the framing of white supremacist violence

Even before the assault on the Capitol on January 6, 2021, a rising chorus of policymakers and pundits had called for treating White supremacist violence as "terrorism." After multiple mass shootings motivated by White supremacist ideology, commentators argued that the "hate crime" label failed to convey the political nature of the violence or assign it the stigma and attention it deserved. This Article unpacks the historical roots and contemporary implications of the hate crimes and terrorism frames. First, it explains how the "hate crimes" and "terrorism "frames took hold in our law and culture, such that they now provide alternative frames for interpreting and responding to White supremacist violence. It draws on 'frame analysis" from a variety of disciplines and the work of sociologists, historians, and legal scholars to explain the historical evolution of the hate crimes and terrorism frames. Second, the Article contends that the decision to frame violence as hate crimes or terrorism matters because these frames diverge starkly in their conceptualization and legal treatment of five issues: the nature and severity of the threat; the reactive versus preventative nature of the law enforcement response; the perceived redeemability of perpetrators; the identity of victims and perpetrators; and the role of individual rights and courts. Calls to treat White supremacist violence as terrorism push responses closer towards features of the terrorism frame, though legal, cultural, and political constraints would prevent a complete adoption of that frame. Third, the Article argues that neither the hate crimes nor terrorism frame is consistent with evolving notions of racial justice. The move to reframe White supremacist violence as terrorism comes with grave risks: it shifts institutional power towards a national security apparatus and experts detached from affected communities; it entrenches preemptive law enforcement practices that investigate and imprison people on suspicion of future threats; and it risks the greater targeting of subordinated communities and groups appearing to challenge the dominant racial and socioeconomic order. The response to White supremacist violence should begin with a critical reexamination of both frames.