Yoga shooting was a hate crime. We should call it one

Brendan Lantz | Your Turn

About two weeks ago, Scott Beierle walked into a local yoga studio and opened fire, killing two women and injuring five others. Over the weekend that followed, various news outlets documented the trail of misogyny and online hate that Beierle left behind.

The following Tuesday, as I prepared to teach my class on Hate and Bias Crimes here at FSU, I grappled with an important question that was sure to be on my student’s minds: Given the overwhelming evidence that Beierle harbored hatred toward women, why were media sources documenting his misogyny, yet not discussing the shooting as a hate crime?

When I teach about this topic, I stress that this label is more than just a label; it serves an important symbolic function, expressing disapproval and outrage toward the behavior, and signifying society’s willingness to take on the collective responsibility of protecting members of marginalized groups.

The evidence of Beierle’s misogyny is well-documented at this point. But in case there was any doubt about his hatred toward women, Beierle also proclaimed himself a “misogynist” and posted a video titled “The Rebirth of my Misogynism.”

However, despite these online declarations, his crimes are not being labeled what preliminary evidence suggests they may be: a hate crime against women. How is it that someone can victimize members of a particular group of people, leave behind overwhelming evidence of hatred toward that group, but not have their crime labeled a hate crime?

If a self-described “white supremacist” violently murdered black men or women, we would likely be quick to refer to the incident as a potential hate crime, and rightly so. Why then, when a self-described misogynist violently murders two women, do we not react the same way?

This refusal to label such crimes as hate crimes is systemic. While gender is protected at the federal level, barely more than half of states include gender as a protected group status in existing hate crime laws; Florida is one state that does not. This exclusion sends a message: Crimes motivated by gender bias are less deserving of society’s protection than other crimes. This needs to change.

If change does not happen, we will continue to describe the perpetrators of misogynistic violence as mentally unstable or "crazy," and continue treating misogyny as a symptom, rather than a cause.

When these crimes do occur, we must acknowledge them as such. We cannot note overwhelming evidence of hatred toward women, yet claim that motive is unclear. At this point, Beierle appears to be motivated by hatred, and crimes motivated by hatred are hate crimes.

Until we acknowledge this, we will continue to appropriately label other acts of violence against particular groups as hate crimes, while neglecting to do the same when these crimes target women. Beierle was a deeply misogynistic man who acted violently toward women, and unless evidence to the contrary comes to light, it is time to start calling crimes like his what they are: hate crimes against women.

Brendan Lantz is an assistant professor of Criminology and Criminal Justice at Florida State University. He conducts research on hate crimes and violence, and teaches a class entitled Hate and Bias Crimes at FSU.