Please read the following speech and answer the questions afterwards.  Use proper grammar and usage. After answering the questions, check and see if we have a hate crime law today.  Do we?  Tell me the source of your information using MLA citation(s). If you are in ESL 107, not 108, 109, or English 101, then go ahead and just tell me information about the sources.  The Rise in Hate Crime: Anti-Immigration Policy By Deval Patrick On July 8, 1994, Deval Patrick addressed the Organization of Chinese Americans about the rise in hate crimes, specifically dealing with those against Asian Americans. At the time of the speech, Patrick was serving as an assistant attorney general in the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice and spoke on its behalf regarding efforts to decrease hate crimes in America. Patrick employs many statistics and refers to past cases in order to demonstrate both the severity of these crimes and the nature of the ongoing fight against discrimination in the United States.  Patrick’s speech is meant to persuade his audience that the Civil Rights Division is working to protect their rights and that they ought to join in this fight against prejudice. As you read, identify the persuasive tools that Patrick uses to sway his audience.             Thank you so much, Daphne Kwok, for that extravagant introduction.  One of the few “perks” of public service is that, when one is asked to speak somewhere, one gets to have one’s accomplishments exaggerated.  I take it warmly, but with a grain of salt.  I say to you, as I do to many audiences, that I only hope someday to be worthy of the many compliments you have given me.             My thanks go out to the Organization of Chinese Americans for inviting me to join you today.  I have so much to learn about the concerns and the practical problems of the various different groups in whose interest we work in the Civil Rights Division, and being able to attend even a small part of the conferences like yours is always helpful and informative.  ...             In the Division right now, in a way, everything is up for grabs—by design.  Last month, we embarked on a strategic planning process by which we will, frankly, define the civil rights enforcement priorities of the Department of Justice, consulting broadly both within the department and among many distinguished advocates outside of the department as well.  Our aim is to have a set of specific enforcement goals, practical problems to help solve and on which to concentrate our resources and attention.  But I can tell you—with or without a strategic plan—that some serious problems already cry out for our attention.             Like you, I’m sure, I have been troubled by the rise in hate crime over the past several years, including anti-Asian violence.  The latest figures from the FBI, under the Hate Crimes Statistics Act, showed 236 incidents of anti-Asian violence in 1993, against 293 victims.  The National Asian Pacific ...

1. Please read the following speech and answer the questions
afterwards. Use proper grammar and usage.
After answering the questions, check and see if we have a hate
crime law today. Do we? Tell me the source of your
information using MLA citation(s). If you are in ESL 107, not
108, 109, or English 101, then go ahead and just tell me
information about the sources.
The Rise in Hate Crime: Anti-Immigration Policy
By Deval Patrick
On July 8, 1994, Deval Patrick addressed the Organization of
Chinese Americans about the rise in hate crimes, specifically
dealing with those against Asian Americans. At the time of the
speech, Patrick was serving as an assistant attorney general in
the
Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice and
spoke on its behalf regarding efforts to decrease hate crimes in
America. Patrick employs many statistics and refers to past
cases in order to demonstrate both the severity of these crimes
and the nature of the ongoing fight against discrimination in the
United States. Patrick’s speech is meant to persuade his
audience that the Civil Rights Division is working to protect
their rights and that they ought to join in this fight against
prejudice. As you read, identify the persuasive tools that Patrick
uses to sway his audience.
Thank you so much, Daphne Kwok, for that extravagant
introduction. One of the few “perks” of public service is that,
when one is asked to speak somewhere, one gets to have one’s

2. accomplishments exaggerated. I take it warmly, but with a
grain of salt. I say to you, as I do to many audiences, that I
only hope someday to be worthy of the many compliments you
have given me.
My thanks go out to the Organization of Chinese
Americans for inviting me to join you today. I have so much to
learn about the concerns and the practical problems of the
various different groups in whose interest we work in the Civil
Rights Division, and being able to attend even a small part of
the conferences like yours is always helpful and informative. ...
In the Division right now, in a way, everything is up for
grabs—by design. Last month, we embarked on a strategic
planning process by which we will, frankly, define the civil
rights enforcement priorities of the Department of Justice,
consulting broadly both within the department and among many
distinguished advocates outside of the department as well. Our
aim is to have a set of specific enforcement goals, practical
problems to help solve and on which to concentrate our
resources and attention. But I can tell you—with or without a
strategic plan—that some serious problems already cry out for
our attention.
Like you, I’m sure, I have been troubled by the rise in
hate crime over the past several years, including anti-Asian
violence. The latest figures from the FBI, under the Hate
Crimes Statistics Act, showed 236 incidents of anti-Asian
violence in 1993, against 293 victims. The National Asian
Pacific Legal Consortium reported 335 incidents in 1993.
According to the Consortium, at least 30 of these incidents
resulted in death. Imagine: 30 homicides just last year in
which Asian Pacific Americans were killed simply because they
were Asian Pacific Americans.
And that’s 30

3. reported
homicides, 335
reported
incidents. No doubt these statistics represent only a fraction of
the incidents of anti-Asian violence in this country. Language
barriers, mistrust of police by recent immigrants, ignorance of
hate crimes protections and civil rights laws, a reluctance of law
enforcement to identify hate crimes as such—all can and often
do suppress the figures reported.
The Civil Rights Division has prosecuted a number of
anti-Asian violence cases in the past, most notably the Vincent
Chin case in Detroit. But we can do better. ... Our objective is
to identify particular problem areas and patterns of violence—
including those involving the growing numbers of organized
hate groups—and to pounce on problems as we learn of them.
We will need your help to get the information, to find the cases
appropriate for federal prosecution. And we will vigorously
pursue these cases where we have the information and the
evidence. Personal safety, freedom from violence based on
status, is a central concern.... In the Civil Rights Division, we
will do our part by bringing the federal prosecutions that
demonstrate that such violence has no place in this society
today. ...
In the Civil Rights Division we have targeted
jurisdictions with minority language populations to provide
more effective assistance. For example, in New York City
recently, we objected when the jurisdiction refused to translate
the names of candidates into Chinese. That produced a change.
Now, New Yorkers more comfortable in Chinese than in English
can join in the political process. There is much more we can
do, and we are working to develop an aggressive enforcement
plan for minority language issues. ...
I have to note a personal concern, too, perhaps a bit

4. outside of my official role and duties. I have been very
troubled by the rash of anti-immigrant politics sweeping certain
parts of the nation. ... [M]ore troubling than anything we have
seen in Washington is the so-called “Save Our State” (SOS)
initiative on the ballot here in California this November. If
passed, among other things, SOS would:
—Limit public education to children who can prove
citizenship or legal residency;
—Require school districts to verify the legal residency of
all
students, as well as the status of their parent or guardian, under
threat of expulsion;
—Deny publicly-funded health services to non-citizens; and
—Require government officials to report “suspected”
undocumented persons to INS, nullifying any sanctuary
ordinance already passed by local governments in the states. ...
There are chilling incidents we can envision for
Hispanic Americans and Asian Americans in particular who will
get reported to and hassled by immigration officials because
they “look” like undocumented aliens, whatever that means. As
a response to immigration problems, “SOS” is like swatting a
flea with a sledgehammer. As a symbolic matter, this initiative
will simply permit the narrow-minded to deny that we are a
multicultural society—as we have always been. It is wrong for
politicians to stir up and exploit anti-immigration sentiment,
passing it off as comprehensive immigration and border control
policy rather than the rank, political maneuver it is.
This and other initiatives and incidents point toward a
larger challenge before the Civil Rights Division, indeed before
the whole nation. Forty years after

5. Brown v. Board of Education
and thirty years after enactment of the Landmark Civil Rights
act of 1964, the civil rights of African Americans have not been
fully achieved. Meanwhile, the civil rights landscape has
changed dramatically. Today, issues are no longer just black
and white. America has evolved and matured over the last forty
years, and now must learn to embrace a significantly
multiethnic and multicultural society. Fear—felt by some,
stirred up by a few—causes us sometimes to recoil from each
other’s struggles to see one group’s gains as another’s losses,
reducing the civil rights debate to some abstract discussion
about entitlements and quotas and like nonsense.
I believe that we must be bigger than that, because the
real and ultimate agenda of our work is to reclaim the American
conscience. Our true mission is to restore the great moral
imperative that civil rights is finally all about, to recreate the
shared national consensus that discrimination is wrong, and to
return the language of civil rights to its essence, back to
concepts of equality, opportunity, and fair play.
We must explain to the nation that civil rights is not
just of concern to African Americans or disabled Americans or
to those whose religion is in the minority; it is of concern to
each and every one of us. Because each citizen is diminished
when anyone—on account of a happenstance of birth—
experiences anything less than the full measure of his or her
dignity and privilege as a human being and an American citizen.
... [T]his effort will only succeed and it will only last if
we all learn to invest in one another’s civil rights—not just as a
matter of political coalition building, but also as a matter of
conscience.
Within broad-based groups, learning to invest in each
other’s struggle and to appreciate each other’s perspectives is

6. happening, with marked results. In the disabilities community,
for example, people who use wheelchairs, or are blind or deaf,
or have HIV or a mental illness found their way to each other
and—together—enabled enactment of the Americans With
Disabilities Act. The ADA became law because a wide variety
of disability rights groups invested in each other’s struggle and
explained to Congress and in the nation a strong
collective
voice that discrimination is an experience that all people with
disabilities share.
...
There is, of course, a parallel in this audience. On
many issues the Chinese American community has joined with
Japanese Americans, Korean Americans, Vietnamese
Americans, Cambodian Americans, and Filipino Americans—
and found strength. But we must learn to cross even these
broad group boundaries and invest in our
common
struggle. The struggle that your community wages against anti-
immigrant sentiment, hate crimes, unfairness in employment,
and language discrimination is a struggle shared by Hispanic
Americans and Jewish Americans and African Americans as
well. Of course there are differences—large and small. And
there are differences in histories, which we must learn to
appreciate and respect. But we must keep in our minds and our
hearts that the indignity of discrimination is just as profound
whether it comes because you speak accented English or have
dark skin, or worship a different God than your neighbor does.
Discrimination is wrong. And there is both comfort and
strength that comes when we commit to each other’s struggle.
At the most basic level, I think Americans understand
this. Summoned to think about what makes us proud of this
country Americans understand at some level that we have a

7. national creed, one deeply rooted in the concepts of equality,
opportunity, and fair play. At some level we understand that
civil rights progress—however sometimes wrenching or
resisted—is ultimately the measure of the progress of our
civilization. And it is up to us as members of the civil rights
community to remind our fellow citizens of that creed and to
help them see that the American community as a whole is
ultimately the real civil rights community.
We are a great nation, it seems to me, not just because
of what we have accomplished, but because of what we have
committed ourselves to become. And it is that sense of hope,
that sense of looking forward, that I believe has made not only
our civil rights movement, but ourselves as a nation, an
inspiration to the world.
Now, it’s up to us. Neither this administration as a
whole nor its Civil Rights Division may have all the answers.
God knows, I don’t. And it would be absurd to believe that we
will always be beyond your criticism or someone else’s. But we
are here with you, looking forward, committed to earning the
hope that so many place in us. Thank you very much.
Discussion Questions
1. What is the general purpose of the speech? What is the
specific purpose?
2. What types of evidence and persuasive appeals does Patrick
use to support his main points?
3. What does the speaker challenge his audience to do?
4. What argument does Patrick use to demonstrate the
importance of decreasing hate crimes in America?