Hate crimes at MSU go uninvestigated

The victim was on campus working when it started.

“Are you Indian?” the person sitting beside them asked. “Are you Pakistani? Are you Bangladeshi?”

They continued the incessant questioning while putting their feet up on the table, in front of the victim’s monitor, stopping their work.

“Go back to your country,” they told the victim, demanding they “buy a ticket and go back.” 

“I want to punch you,” the person said, according to a report filed with Michigan State University and its campus police department.

The report, filed by a witness, said the person then shared other “choice words towards Indians.” They attached a photo of the alleged perpetrator.

The report was exactly the sort of thing Michigan’s hate crime law was written to prevent: intimidation or threats targeted at someone because of a protected characteristic, like their national origin.

But, MSU Police chose not to investigate the matter.

Why? Because when an officer emailed the victim, they never got a response.

Campus police also declined to investigate a case of another student who claimed someone grabbed and harassed them on campus over their national origin; investigations also weren’t pursued when a man was punched and slurred after mentioning a boyfriend at a tailgate, or when another Queer person was shoulder-checked and called slurs.

In another case, campus police closed an investigation into who drew Stars of David and a Swastika on the arm of a student sleeping in a dorm; the university’s civil rights office also declined to investigate complaints about derogatory remarks made by a zealous heckler frequenting the courtyard behind Wells Hall.

Each time, the reason for dropping the case was the same: Victims declined to cooperate with a formal investigation. In nearly every instance reviewed by The State News, campus cops closed cases that dealt with discrimination in what they describe as “the interest of being victim-centered.”

In the one case identified by The State News where victims did cooperate and police pursued an investigation, officers deployed a suite of sophisticated technology to swiftly identify and locate the perpetrators, who have since been charged.

The police reports reviewed by the State News span from October 2023 to October 2024. They were obtained through a series of public records requests, which MSU took months and charged hundreds of dollars to fulfill.

A review of more recent incidents suggests the issue continues. Of the seven hate crimes reported to campus police since October 2024, only one is listed as an active investigation on the university’s public crime log. (The State News is awaiting MSU’s response to public records requests for the full reports in those cases.)

The persistent problem further complicates an ongoing debate about MSU’s handling of hateful incidents. 

Some advocates have pressed the administration to do more about a perceived rise in discrimination on campus. MSU’s largest Black student organization recently launched an ironically named “Hate Has A Home Here” protest campaign, and a member of MSU’s board has publicly called on the administration to “implement a clear, zero-tolerance policy for all forms of racial violence.”

University leaders, meanwhile, have stressed that their options are limited, as some of the hateful statements and incidents at issue fall under the broad protections of the First Amendment.

The previously unreported noncooperation issue adds a new dimension to that discussion, showing that while advocates and administrators spar over the hazy lines of protected speech, clear-cut incidents are going uninvestigated because of victims’ unwillingness to work with campus police.

Lack of victim participation

It’s unclear exactly why victims aren’t cooperating. Their names and all identifying information are redacted in the police reports, so The State News could not reach out to them directly. Student organizations for various groups affected declined to speculate about the reasons for noncompliance.

Experts have characterized the phenomenon as a sign of broken trust between marginalized students and law enforcement. One recent study found that college students who experienced hate crimes often declined to cooperate with campus police because they didn't think police would actually help them, especially if they had bad interactions with law enforcement in the past.

“Some students, particularly those from marginalized backgrounds, may perceive campus or local police as unhelpful — or even harmful — making them more reluctant to report incidents,” said Michael Grigsby, a Ph.D. candidate at the University of Southern California who studies inequities in higher education and has written about underreporting of hate crimes on campuses.

Some colleges have attempted to lessen that issue, he said. Being more transparent about incidents and investigations, for example, can promote confidence in the university’s handling of cases. Colleges can also consolidate and advertise explanatory materials better, with something like a central webpage and clear infographics that explain reporting and support.

“If students perceive the process as overly bureaucratic, too invasive or unlikely to result in justice, they may opt out rather than relive the trauma through repeated questioning or confrontations with the perpetrator,” Grigsby said.

MSU Police could hypothetically investigate these cases without victims’ participation. But, a department spokesperson said that the initial reports often lack enough information to determine if a crime occurred under the threshold in Michigan law. To get that, they would need to hear more from victims.

MSU Police’s attempts to do that, however, are far from explicit. The emails sent to victims offer supportive resources and say that “MSUPD affirms that trauma is real,” but never actually mention the possibility of a police investigation or the need for victims’ cooperation to conduct one, according to copies attached to police reports. (A department spokesperson declined to answer questions about the emails.)

Hate crimes aren't the only cases where noncompliance is an issue. A recent State News report found that sexual assault and hazing allegations sent to MSU Police against various fraternites and their members also go uninvestigated because victims don’t cooperate with officers.

MSU administration also closed case

The noncooperation issue also appears to extend past campus police, also affecting at least one case handled by MSU’s Office for Civil Rights, a unit within the university that has limited authority to investigate discrimination and enact administrative discipline.

Starting in August 2024, the Civil Rights office received the first in a series of complaints about a man frequenting the courtyard behind Wells Hall. 

The first said he “make(s) students uncomfortable, and verbally berate(s) them for their sexual orientation, religious affiliation, gender and more ... yelling at us about how we’re evil, we’re going to hell.” Another said he is “yelling at girls to ‘forgive their rapist’ and ‘forgive their sex offenders.’” 

A woman said she felt sexually harassed when he told her “everyone is too preoccupied with the size of their genitals,” apparently because she was wearing a “low-cut top.” One report also accused the man of threatening a roller-skating nonbinary person by saying they would fall into the nearby river and “be a corpse floating in the Red Cedar.” Another claimed he called two Arab students “terrorists.” A group of students who were discussing homophobia were reportedly told “we could be shot at any minute and would go to hell because they hadn’t repented.”

It was exactly the sort of thing the Civil Rights investigators were supposed to handle. 

MSU Police had sent an officer to observe the man, according to a report, and they deemed that he wasn’t committing a criminal offense because his speech was protected by the First Amendment. The Civil Rights office, however, administers a broader Anti-Discrimination Policy which covers speech if it is “severe, persistent, or pervasive” and “creates an unreasonable interference with the individual’s work or educational experience.”

But, those who complained didn’t respond to repeated outreach from Civil Rights investigators or said they wouldn’t participate in an investigation, leading MSU to close the case, according to the case file.

In another case, MSU’s Civil Rights investigators were a victim’s preferred alternative to police.

The student who had Stars of David and a Swastika drawn on her arm while she slept briefly cooperated with police, being interviewed, connecting them with relevant witnesses and providing text messages and images corroborating the story.

But she later told officers not to proceed, according to the police report, saying she hadn’t realized a criminal investigation would be opened because of her report.

She wasn’t initially aware of the separate process with MSU’s Civil Rights investigators, and wanted to instead pursue that, the police report says. MSU declined to say how, or if, that case was eventually resolved.

Tech, new laws push police to do more

In the one incident of discrimination MSU Police did investigate, officers drew on the university’s new campus surveillance system to track down suspects and make arrests. The incident also underscores how new Michigan laws are broadening what can be investigated.

After a group of local youths viciously beat a gay couple in MSU’s main library, the victims cooperated with an MSU Police investigation.

After taking their statements, officers used a new array of thousands of security cameras to track the suspects from the library to a nearby parking structure. They then used facial recognition software in an attempt to identify the suspects.

The software, Clearview AI, is controversial among civil liberties advocates and has paid hundreds of millions of dollars in settlements to people who sued over privacy concerns.

As is MSU’s nearly $10 million investment in the new surveillance system, which was criticized by student activists and questioned by experts who doubted it would make campus safer.

But the previously unreported use of the system to find those responsible for the library beating could represent a sort of fulfillment of MSU’s promise that despite the concerns, their new tech would help them solve crimes.

An MSU Police spokesperson said the department hopes to be able to respond to more reports — with or without victim participation — given the additional technology.

The case also highlights the changing legal pathways police have to crack down on hateful acts.

The beating was not technically a hate crime. The perpetrators were charged only with aggravated assault, despite reportedly targeting and mocking the victims for their sexual orientation before attacking them.

That’s because when it occurred in April 2023, sexual orientation was not a protected status under Michigan’s civil rights law. New laws enacted in the time since, however, add gender identity and sexual orientation to the list of protected characteristics.

Student Affairs Reporter Anish Topiwala and Student Life Reporter Demonte Thomas contributed reporting.