Last Thursday, The Michigan Daily printed an article titled Junior pleads guilty to throwing beer (03/23/2006) - a rather anticlimactic ending to the explosive "Asian hate crime" saga. Following an incident last September, in which two white students allegedly verbally abused and urinated on two Asian students, we witnessed one of the most virulent campus uproars in recent years. While inflaming racial tension on this campus is no feat, this incident had a particular potency, resulting in protests as far away as the University of California at Berkeley as well as a letter to students from University President Mary Sue Coleman, a "hate crime" hotline and the "Expect Respect" campaign.

Amidst the uproar, few bothered to reserve judgment until the facts were known, and few cared when the suspects involved disputed the accusations. Many on this campus - students, professors and administrators alike - were only too excited to get on with the witch trial, calling for the prosecution and expulsion of the suspects and promising to combat the "cold" racial climate on campus. No one bothered to review a single shred of evidence.

Unfortunately, many of these individuals may feel their actions were warranted, given Stephen Williamson's recent plea. To understand this plea, however, one must understand what Williamson faced. He could have fought the charges, spent thousands on an attorney, endured a trial and rolled the dice with a jury. On the other hand, Williamson could have accepted the plea, taken a few months of probation and had the charges expunged from his record. Given the "guilty, even if proven innocent" attitude of this campus, one cannot blame Williamson for his decision to avoid a similar jury.

Indeed, the prosecution made a smart move by filing several charges, then offering to drop half of them in exchange for a guilty plea and probation. The prosecutor gets the conviction, the fa