Countering white supremacy
White supremacists now account for the largest share of U.S. domestic terrorism. This is a sobering fact. In September, FBI Director Christopher Wray noted in a House Homeland Security committee meeting that there were more domestic terrorism investigations this year than previous years’ averages and that racially motivated extremist violence makes up the largest portion of those investigations.
And this is not an abstract national problem. More recently, on Nov. 12, an FBI analyst with the Pittsburgh office of the FBI called southwestern Pennsylvania a “hub” for white supremacy and extremists.
Other commentators immediately leapt in to point out that such groups have long been active in southwestern Pennsylvania, and that the FBI’s comments don’t necessarily indicate an increase in activity insomuch as an increase in scrutiny on the area. This is true.
Recruitment by and meetings of such groups are protected activity under the First Amendment. Some such organizations may be detestable, but their activities and beliefs are not illegal in this country.
Then again, we know racist, hateful language can and does lead to realworld violence and that that is happening more frequently these days. So what is to be done?
The FBI is limited in what it can investigate. Hateful rhetoric is not enough to launch any kind of action against groups — that requires a threat of violence, furtherance of an ideology and a federal crime.
The analyst’s remarks occurred at a Duquesne University digital event and were aimed at raising awareness of the bureau’s need for public support.
The idea of reporting neighbors or acquaintances is distasteful. No one likes a snitch. But given the rise in violence over the years, holding such groups accountable is clearly necessary.
Residents must report hate crimes where found, whether these lead to actual prosecutions and arrests or not. Such tips can help the FBI zero in on problematic areas.
We must also recognize that not all right-wing groups are white supremacist and that painting with too broad a brush will be counterproductive in rooting out actual violence. Too many cries of “wolf!” will crowd out reports of genuine threats.
The rising tide of supremacist violence calls for a more nuanced understanding of these groups’ ideologies as well as more aggressive law enforcement profiling. This will include investigative scholarship and journalism and public education.
The FBI event concluded that dialogue was the most effective tool in preventing violence and that community outreach is essential in combating the online recruitment efforts of such groups. This is true, but as a community we can go further.
We can research which groups are active in the area, like the Patriot Front and the American Freedom Union (the Southern Poverty Law Center keeps an active map tracking such information) and be on the lookout for mobilization and recruitment efforts. Understanding what is driving individuals to join these groups and countering hate-group recruitment messaging with more targeted, empathetic efforts could help as well.
The key is not to hand-wring, but to give law enforcement the tools they need to profile and catch these actors on minor infractions before they do untold damage, as they have in Pittsburgh and other cities.
Above all, learning to recognize the difference between hateful speech vs. calls for violence must be a priority for law enforcement and residents alike.