This talk is based on an article in California Law Review that 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. Sinnar then argues that neither the hate crimes nor terrorism frame adequately conceptualizes the problem or solutions.  In particular, 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.

This talk is co-sponsored by the Promise Institute for Human Rights at the UCLA School of Law and by the UCLA Institute for Society & Genetics.