Call for Papers–Hate and Political Discourse

Society of American Law Teachers, July 1, 2011


Deadline: March 15, 2012

“Hate and Political Discourse”

Journal of Hate Studies

Volume X, No. 1 (2012/13)

Guest Editor:

Robert L. Tsai, J.D.

Professor of Law, American University, Washington College of Law

About the Theme

Often shielded by constitutional rules and nurtured by political discourse, hate has a mercurial existence in the popular imagination. In the “arena of angry minds,” as Richard Hofstadter called American political life, political actors sometimes choose to condemn hatred, distance themselves from it, appeal to its existence, or foment it. Even when subjugation, discrimination, or violence is not the goal, the politics of hate can pay off.

Rather than seeking its total eradication, many democracies assume the permanence of hate and seek to minimize its excesses or to punish and prohibit specific expressions. Are such assumptions well-founded, and such strategies wise?

Some of the social groups marked through the techniques of hatred have changed over time, as the political dividends for resorting to strategies of hate have shifted, while other groups seem to be consistent targets of hate.

Technological advances offer new tools to combat hatemongering even as they can make demagogues more effective.

What are the structural conditions that allow hate to thrive or might permit its isolation? How might inroads be made in the law or politicsof inclusion, especially in countries with strong commitments to rhetorical freedom and popular sovereignty?

Call for Submissions

The Journal of Hate Studies welcomes original papers treating the theme, “Hate and Political Discourse,” from a wide range of disciplines, including history, law, philosophy, political science, sociology, criminal justice, social psychology, economics, anthropology, geography,

journalism, communications, rhetoric, literature, educational studies, and cultural studies.

We especially encourage original treatments of the following topics:

* Hate and popular sovereignty

* How hate can foster alternative communities and movements

* Cultural foundations of hate

* Historical changes in rhetorical strategies

* Political parties and hate

* Necessary political conditions for hate

* Empirical approaches to the problem of hate

* The role of hate in nation-building

* How literature, rhetoric, journalism or other forms of communication can fuel or discourage hate

* Geographical differences in how hatred is sustained or combated

* Comparative approaches and cross-cultural challenges

* New technologies in combating or fomenting hatred in the realm of political discourse

We anticipate hosting an invitational Symposium in Fall 2012, either at American University or Gonzaga University, in conjunction with the publication of this Volume. Authors published in this Volume would be invited to present their work at the Symposium.

About the Journal

The Journal of Hate Studies is a peer-reviewed publication of the Gonzaga University Institute for Hate Studies. The Journal of Hate Studies is an international scholarly journal promoting the sharing of interdisciplinary ideas and research relating to the study of what hate is, where it comes from, and how to combat it. It presents cutting-edge essays, theory, and research that deepen the understanding of the development and expression of hate.


Share This

We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.

31 Responses to “Call for Papers–Hate and Political Discourse” Subscribe

  1. Anonymous July 19, 2011 at 6:12 pm #

    Notice that “hate” is a transitive; it requires an object. You can’t just hate; you must hate something. It’s meaningless to use the word hate, without specifying what is hated.

    The liberals have taken this word, and morphed it into a stimulus for mass mind control. The liberals indoctrinate the meme, “hate” and “haters” are evil, into the public brain, in schools and through mass communication. Who are the haters? They almost always turn out to be white men who oppose the liberal agenda.

  2. Anonymous July 19, 2011 at 6:56 pm #

    What is the world is happening to the English language? “Hate” is a verb – the corresponding noun is “hatred.” Either the idiots that dreamed up this use of the word “hate” thought its monosyllabic, staccato sound would have more emotional impact than the bisyllabic “hatred,” or they didn’t have the requisite proficiency in English to begin with. I suspect the latter.

  3. Mike B. July 19, 2011 at 7:00 pm #

    What else would you expect from one of our ‘esteemed’ institutions of higher brainwashing (sorry, I meant higher learning).

    I have a suggestion. Wait until there are a bunch of comments on this story, then send AmRen’s specific URL for this story

    (Call for Papers—Hate and Political Discourse)) to:

    Robert L. Tsai, J.D.

    Guest Editor

    Professor, American University Washington College of Law

    Click to Email


    John Shuford, J.D., Ph.D.

    Director, Gonzaga University Institute for Hate Studies

    Click to Email


    Guidelines for Submissions

    Submissions are typically expected to be between 5,000 and 10,000 words.

    Submissions may be made in either of the following ways:

    * As an attachment sent by email to:

    Click to email

    * Through the Journal’s online site:

    (Online site)

  4. Anonymous July 19, 2011 at 7:04 pm #

    I hope to see a paper on how much black teens hate whites, and how they then violently act out on that hatred.

    By the way, the noun should be “hatred”, and the verb “hate”.

  5. William hendershto July 19, 2011 at 7:07 pm #

    I am changing my name to Hendershot-Obongu (libs love hyphenated names)and writing about “Historical changes in rhetorical strategies”. I’ll copy and paste some stories from the AmRen magazine about what happens to whites when they work with blacks.

    They’ll love it.

  6. margaret July 19, 2011 at 7:16 pm #

    This is a propaganda tool that will be used to justify the genocide of Whites. The conclusion will be: hate is a capital crime. All Whites simply by being White are guilty of hate.

    Therefore all Whites must be executed.

    Gonzaga University. A Catholic university and I believe a Jesuit University. I’m glad I left the Catholic church 40 years ago when the Bishops conference rejected the 90 percent of Catholics who are White and grovelled at the feet of black protestants.

    150 years ago the bishops were outraged by alleged job discrimination against White Catholics. Every history of the Irish-Catholics in America goes on and on about this discrimination.

    Since 1970 the bishops have applauded far worse government created and viciously enforced job discrimination against Irish and other White catholics in favor of largely protestant blacks.

    There is not much we Whites can do to help ourselves but at least we can abandon the Christian churches who have abandoned us.

  7. sbuffalonative July 19, 2011 at 7:19 pm #

    Even when subjugation, discrimination, or violence is not the goal, the politics of hate can pay off.

    Which is why blacks and their apologists use it to demonze whites.

    Rather than seeking its total eradication, many democracies assume the permanence of hate and seek to minimize its excesses or to punish and prohibit specific expressions. Are such assumptions well-founded, and such strategies wise?

    From the statement and question, I suspect their solution is to silence ‘hate’ by any means necessary. That would likely include ending any remnant of free speech, locking up offenders, and restrictions on the internet.

    These people should be questioned about their obsessive hatred of hate. It’s not healthy.

  8. Wayne Engle July 19, 2011 at 7:23 pm #

    Sounds like a fair-enough proposal, as long as people keep in mind that “hate” isn’t simply some White guy yelling, “N-word!”

    For instance, the Democratic party fosters hatred of upper-income people among its members, demonizing them in order to more easily justify confiscatory tax rates. How often have we heard them referred to as “the rich,” “millionaires and billionaires,” “the most fortunate among us,” etc.? I guess by the liberals’ lights, no one with a lot of money ever deserves it, no matter whence or how it came.

    Another example that comes to mind is the Mormon church, pretty White-bread in this country. In Utah, the state founded by Mormons and in which they still constitute a majority, the Salt Lake Tribune, published by non-Mormons, goes out of its way in its news stories to paint the LDS church and its people in a bad light. Regular posters to the Trib’s website gleefully jump on board, posting often scurrilously unfair and bigoted comments about the church and its members.

    So, to the Society of American Law Teachers, there’s “hate,” and then there’s “hate.” It’s not always — maybe not even usually — racially based.

  9. WR the elder July 19, 2011 at 8:29 pm #

    How about, “Profiting From Hate: An In-Depth Examination of the Southern Poverty Law Center Business Model”?

  10. Question Diversity July 19, 2011 at 8:45 pm #

    Some useful translations for reading this article:

    “Hate.” Conservative political discourse.

    “Constitutional Rules.” Damn that 1st Amendment.

    “Structural conditions.” At least two white people are consuming oxygen on Earth.

    “Popular sovereignty.” A political decision not made in Washington, D.C.

    “Alternative communities.” White people fleeing black crime.

    “Political parties and hate.” Any non-RINO Republican winning an election

    “Necessary political condition.” See: Structural conditions.

    “Empirical approaches.” Donate money to ADL or SPLC.

    “Hate in nation building.” Any majority white country.

    “Geographical differences in hate.” Red states.

    “New technologies…Fomenting hate.” News distribution by a source that didn’t exist in 1980.


    Gonzaga University (Spokane, Wash.) only jumped on this train because of the “compounds” of white people that used to exist in neighboring northern Idaho, before Morris Dees sued them out of existence on behalf of a dope dealer that got his feelings hurt by “compound members” when a deal went badly.

  11. Anonymous July 19, 2011 at 9:46 pm #

    I agree with poster # 1. and would even go further. The word hate which is used here (and used over and over) is being used as a noun. The author is giving ‘hatred’ a physical manifestation. The underlying assumption, all parties concerned seem to agree upon, is that ‘hatred’ stands for white men? Or conservative who are people of color, who, because of the nature of their hue always seem to earn a free pass. Exceptions or something. .

    I think the author is right, however. Hatred really does stand for white men. They are seething with it, tho it rarely breaks the conscious surface. No doubt the solution will be more condemnation and silencing of white men.

  12. Whiteman July 19, 2011 at 9:50 pm #

    Where’s ‘John PM’ who used to post on here? I’d be interested in reading his ‘paper’ response to this.

    I can write, ‘God help us all’ anyway.

  13. rjp July 19, 2011 at 10:12 pm #

    Everyone of the topics sounds like is a topic that could only be written about from a liberal perspective for it even to be consider for acceptance.

    Which means evey paper will be written by an extreme liberal who hates conservatives. Just more hate speech.

  14. Anonymoose July 19, 2011 at 10:18 pm #

    In the liberal lexicon, the individual experience of hate is itself a primary pathology. Hate needs no object, according to this view, though it generally fixes on a particular object.

    Hate is non-pathological when it comes into being as a result of certain provocations. In the liberal view, these provocation are always instigated by white males against non-whites, women and gender identification and sexual orientation minorities.

    In that case, hate become not-hate, either an acceptable mode of self defense or, at worst, an understandable reaction to extreme provocation.

    Ultimately, the correct reaction by a white male to the experience of being a hate object should be increased introspection and self criticism. This must be so even if the white male is not merely insulted but materially deprived of education, career opportunity, or even physical safety.

    Through this experience, the white male is supposed to “understand” what others have experienced under white male repression. With this understanding, what comes is not relief from counter repression however. What is supposed to follow is an understanding by the white male individual of why he is supposed to be insulted, deprived of education and career opportunity, and even physically assaulted.

    Under this system, the white male lacks even the dignity of passive, non-violent resistance. Non-violent resistance has as its goal the moral transformation of the oppressor. In this system, the oppressor is deemed to not suffer from so much as the possibility of moral defect.

  15. Anonymous July 19, 2011 at 10:56 pm #

    Ref Post #01 Yes, the morphing of language for purposes of mass mind control is the core matter. I confess to not yet knowing the etymology of “hate” but clearly there is an underlying Blank Slate fallacy in the inflationary use of the

    word “hate” by such slick huckster outfits as $PLC. Hate must

    imply that the elements of anger that have had such survival value in the struggles of human evolution become in terms of “hate” disproportionate and misallocated. “Hate” seems to be to anger what “Lust” is to healthy erotic love–namely, an insatiable, cloying perversion. It is a little amusing to suspect some outfit like $PLC would advocate dealing with lust by enforcing universal sexual abstinence. THAT would be a new wrinkle on the metaphor of “The Church of Morri$ Dee$” Let us resist being “$aved” by the language $anctifier$.

  16. Madison Grant July 19, 2011 at 11:34 pm #

    For centuries the political parties of the Left have run hate campaigns against the rich while spreading class envy.

    Some windbag pol- usually from a wealthy background himself- gives a speech to working people telling them how they’re being exploited and ripped off by big corporations.

    Later, the same pol holds a fundraiser behind closed doors where those same corporate fatcats grease his palm w/ “campaign contributions”.

  17. CuriousQuisling July 19, 2011 at 11:39 pm #

    This is a very interesting site. All the articles of previous journals are in pdf form. So it makes for interesting reading. Of course, we will often be the bad guys in this drama. But it still is an interesting drama.


  18. TomSwift July 20, 2011 at 12:10 am #

    If I bust it building a nice community to live in and millions of immigrants come to transform it into a place I don’t want to live in anymore, I might “hate” the immigrants.


    1) the “hate” is justified.

    2) I “hate” them for what they do, not because they have a different skin tone.

    3) Truth be told, I would argue that “hate” isn’t the cause of the world’s problems anyway. Two emotions, “love” and “envy” have always struck me as far worse. I have heard that people in love with something or someone have a brain-state similar to most mental illnesses – love is irrational and interferes with our decision-making process.

  19. Deirdre July 20, 2011 at 12:52 am #

    “Some of the social groups marked through the techniques of hatred have changed over time as the political dividends for resorting to strategies of hate have shifted…” That could actually refer to whites but I don’t think it does. Somehow I don’t think there is any universitiy that would be open to the idea that whites are now more frequently subject to “hate” crimes than blacks. Any submission of that sort would be marked with a big fat F. I went to Columbia, and it was a completely liberal nightmare. We were discussing the ever-present “underserved communities” when a young lady from Poland disagreed with the policies for all the social entitlement programs etc., and the prevailing idea of “institutional racism” that was constantly referred to (this was in the early ’90s). She explained that she did not believe there was any racism against blacks but that as she saw it,they didn’t do anything for themselves. She explained how she came to the country a few years before, didn’t speak a word of English and was a cleaning lady for years while she learned the language and saved enough money for college. She became a nurse and was in a graduate program doing her nurse practitioner. She was not able to receive any financial aid and all scholarships were for minorities. She felt that there was far more opportunity for blacks to go to college as there were outreach programs to coax and cajole them into getting an education, where there was nothing along those lines for whites. She was loudly verbally attacked by the entire class, about 2 blacks and 20 whites, a knee jerk reaction if I ever saw one. I saw her point but didn’t speak up because I just wasn’t sure which was true back then. I see it now – and it was obviously clear as day to her even back then. Now I would definitely take her side even if I had to endure the accusations of racism, because I feel very sure now that I’m older and a race realist.

  20. White Guy In Japan July 20, 2011 at 1:08 am #

    Some of you academics out there should seize this opportunity to submit examples of “hate”: White-bashing Black groups, Marxist anthropologists, etc.

  21. Harumphty Dumpty July 20, 2011 at 3:07 am #

    “The Journal of Hate Studies is a peer-reviewed publication of the Gonzaga University Institute for Hate Studies.”

    My God…Just when you think it can’t get any crazier…

    The academy has become a religious order, where initiates seek purity through rigorous rituals of self-mortification.

  22. crusader88 July 20, 2011 at 3:51 am #

    True, Anonymous, but the type of hate is so well established by usage that I would hardly fault them for their suspect grammar.

    Liberals have their laundry list of “conservatives” they would prefer get run over by cars, but everyone knows that’s not what they mean. Hate, for them, is only hate if directed against cultural decay and disease. A wide range of other feelings, convictions, and dispositions qualify as or imply (I.e. hate facts) hate if they tend toward vitality in society, or enrich culture, especially if the culture is Christian and/or white, though not exclusively so (see attempts to dignify gangsta rap sung and heard chiefly by blacks).

  23. Anonymous July 20, 2011 at 11:21 am #

    Hate is simply an intense dislike for something or somebody. It is ok by liberals however to hate greed, hate laziness, hate incompetence, hate ignorance , hate stupidity, hate violence, hate pain and hate crime. Even though I observe blacks as being dominated by these traits or causing same to a large degree I don’t hate blacks I simply hate being around these traits therefore I avoid blacks. How can any rational person attack this kind of hate. OOPS, forgot we were talking about liberals.

  24. Anonymous July 20, 2011 at 1:25 pm #

    Poster 14..excellent post…this is a good example..none of the White victims fought back..

  25. J. Howells July 20, 2011 at 1:32 pm #

    The abstraction “hate” is ascribed by the left to positions and tendencies they find objectionable. This stigmatization is employed in order to make dissenting views seem irrational and even as a manifestation of psychopathology. See Bloch and Reddaway’s 1977 work which documents the way the USSR dealt with dissents by classifying their opinions as insanity.

  26. Anonymous July 20, 2011 at 7:01 pm #

    “For centuries the political parties of the Left have run hate campaigns against the rich while spreading class envy. Some windbag pol- usually from a wealthy background himself- gives a speech to working people telling them how they’re being exploited and ripped off by big corporations. Later, the same pol holds a fundraiser behind closed doors where those same corporate fatcats grease his palm w/ “campaign contributions”.

    Quite interesting. Sounds like it could be true.

    This is probably a separate issue, but I’ve always suspected Karl Marx, with his calls to eliminate all religion and conquer the world by way of the red army, I’ve always suspected he was funded by the establishment. The ‘monied interests’ knew opposition was coming and wanted to be in control that opposition? Kind of the ‘there’s no difference between the two sides’ argument?

  27. Anonymous July 20, 2011 at 7:05 pm #

    Proud to be a Hater. Proud to be a lover. Proud to spend most time in between. Anyone who does not feel the full spectrum of feelings in a normal day is wanting for mental health – somewhere.

    If there is anyone reading who is more qualified than me to speak to this, I wish they would. My education in psychology is only transient, but I believe that this is a basic truth of how the healthy mind operates.

  28. Question Diversity July 20, 2011 at 11:55 pm #

    Useful translations, Part II.


    “shielded by constitutional rules” — Laurence Tribe hasn’t come up with a way to put all white right wingers in prison

    “hate has a mercurial existence” — White people sometimes cuss in the presence of a non-Asian minority

    “arena of angry minds” — The minute fringe opposed to affirmative action and open borders and also vote

    “the politics of hate can pay off” — Some politicians suffer the indignity of representing a majority white district

    “many democracies assume the permanence of hate” — Most white people wake up with the same worldview they had when they went to sleep

    “other groups seem to be consistent targets of hate” — We can’t convince white people that they should believe us rather than their lying eyes

    “Technological advances … can make demagogues more effective” — We used to be able to tell ’em that ‘you’re the only one complaining’ and they used to believe it

    “welcomes original papers” — Under 50% plagiarized. We mean it!

    “from a wide range of disciplines” — Both socialists and communists, both far left and extreme left, are welcome. We don’t discriminate on creed.

    “Historical changes in rhetorical strategies” — No matter what their signs say, we’ll call them racist anyway

    “How literature … can fuel or discourage hate” — All else fails, we’ll prohibit literacy lessons to white people; a little learning can be a dangerous thing

    “Comparative approaches and cross-cultural challenges” — Black-Hispanic gang wars make our brains blue-screen

    “We anticipate hosting an invitational Symposium in Fall 2012” — Author of the best paper gets a one-year minimum wage internship with no benefits at the SPLC

    “peer-reviewed publication…cutting-edge essays, theory, and research that deepen the understanding of the development and expression of hate.” — We failed all our hard science courses

  29. Anonymous July 21, 2011 at 12:48 am #

    The “morphing” of langauge remains the basic issue with “hate”

    and with the smearing about of this term by the left. The solution is to clearly delineate with the clarity of a good Madison Avenue TV ad, just what the evolved survival emotions within humans are and how “hate” legitimately cannot be confused with servicable and just anger, or even very intense anger, or withrighteous indignation, or with merited social repudiation. Christ, for example, did not cleanse the temple out of hatred, but for someone not knowing His frame of reference, the actions merely in the eye of a naive beholder could be smeared as “hate”. In fact, ignorance and intolerance form the basis for the $PLC-like manipulation of the word “hate” Campuses devoted fervently to ignoring or ridiculing traditon, also lend their verbose barbarism to the Orwellian word games.

  30. Fr. John July 21, 2011 at 8:40 am #

    This is nothing more than Lysenkoism, American Style.

    This entire wing should be shut down, and defunded…. espcially if they DON’T allow, permit, or include ‘H8 against Christian Caucasian Fundamentalists’ in their ‘call for papers.’

    And you KNOW they won’t!

  31. Harumphty Dumpty July 21, 2011 at 1:56 pm #

    10 — Question Diversity wrote:

    “Structural conditions.” At least two white people are consuming oxygen on Earth.

    I can’t stop laughing! Both your lists were great, QD. I also especially liked

    “welcomes original papers” — Under 50% plagiarized. We mean it!”

    What gripes me especially is that the idea that scholarship should attempt to be disinterested seems to have disappeared from colleges and universities, at least in these “studies” departments that have proliferated since the 60s. They all proudly proclaim their activist aims on their home pages now.