Earlier this week, the Washington Post reported on an incident in which a Californian Airbnb host stranded their guest under the pretense of the guest being Asian. Though the incident occurred back in February, only this week did the verdict present itself: the host, Tami Barker, was to pay a $5,000 fine, take a college course on Asian-American studies, participate in a community education panel, provide volunteer service, and report her rental data for four years. According to the Post , Barker also willingly issued an apology on her behavior.

Such an incident seems almost unimaginable - once, during my travels in New York City, I came upon a foreign traveler trying to enter her Airbnb, but did not have the key to get into the apartment. During the course of events, which included looking all around the door and chasing down one of the supposed host's neighbors (who consequently let us in), there was not a single note of anonymity, not even from the neighbor. There are several reasons to be stranded, this being one of them, but racial bias is far from a plausible reason.

That being said, one of the more interesting parts of the verdict is the clause involving the course on Asian-American studies. Mandatory attendance of a college course is quite unusual for a punishment, and naturally, brings up multitudes of questions. Barker is required to attend the course, of course, but is the requirement filled only if she attends, or is she required to pass the course as well? After all, if she had truly learned from the course, she would be able to pass it with flying colors.

Secondly, if Barker was so willing to apologize and take the consequences given to her according to her punishment, what had led her to racist outburst to begin with? In experience, those who are punished for similar incidents are stubborn about accepting their punishments, believing that they were within their rights to have done what they did. For example, Kim Davis - the county clerk who refused to hand out marriage licenses to same-sex couples because of her beliefs about marriage - returned right to work after she was suspended. By all means, Barker has not shown the slightest bit of upset at her punishment.

Lastly, should this type of punishment be used more widely and more often? It is often said that a lack of education is one of the largest woes of the nation. Not to say that incidents such as this are directly correlated to a lack of education, but perhaps education could be beneficial in aiding lessen likewise incidents. For example, if someone was harassed or discriminated against on the basis of their religion (if the guest had been Muslim instead of Asian), if found to be punished, the aggressor would be made to take (and pass) a college course on religious studies. Or, if the aggression is in relations to sexuality, a class on gender and sexuality be taken. The idea is already being used in relation to driver aggression - if a driver is found to be driving aggressively a certain number of times, their license is taken away and the operator made to take a course on driving safely before being allowed to drive once more.

Barker's act of intolerance was handled in a very unique way, but it should be in a way that is commonplace - making the offender take a course related to the subject not only forces them to learn, but as it is time-consuming, could possibly be enough to make anyone consider their words before converting them to actions.