Revelations: March On

March 08, 2015 By: nancy a heitzeg Category: 2014 Mid-term Elections, 2016 Election, Anti-Racism, Civil Rights, Corrupt Judiciary, Corrupt Legislature, Criminal Injustice Series, Government for Good, Intersectionality, Voting Rights, What People are Doing to Change the World

Eyes on the Prize (VI) — Bridge to Freedom, 1965

From the Archives: Where’s the Spirit of Selma Now? by Gay Talese

Fifty Years After Bloody Sunday in Selma, Everything and Nothing Has Changed, The Nation


No. 12-96. Argued February 27, 2013–Decided June 25, 2013

The Voting Rights Act: A Resource Page, Brennan Center for Justice

CI: The Supreme Court and the Shape of Social Movements

February 04, 2015 By: nancy a heitzeg Category: 2012 Election, 2014 Mid-term Elections, 2016 Election, Anti-Racism, Civil Rights, Corrupt Judiciary, Criminal Injustice Series, Government for Good, Intersectionality, Police State, Prison Industrial Complex, What People are Doing to Change the World

Criminal InJustice is a weekly series devoted to taking action against inequities in the U.S. criminal justice system. Nancy A. Heitzeg, Professor of Sociology and Race/Ethnicity, is the Editor of CI. Kay Whitlock, co-author of Queer (In)Justice, is contributing editor of CI. Criminal Injustice is published every Wednesday at 6 pm.


The Supreme Court and the Shape of Social Movements
by nancy a heitzeg

I spend too much time thinking about the Supreme Court (although one could argue that others do not do so enough), and more now too, in light of recent events. There is a lot that i could say about the insanely unchecked power of nine robed people, their shadowy grip over the entirety of all our legal endeavors,  and the insidious death star that is the Roberts Court – about to knee-cap Obamacare, rule Gay Marriage a state’s right issue, destroy the legal protections against discrimination afforded by  “disparate impact,”  allow states to torture condemned prisoners to death with any old randomly mixed drug cocktail, additionally constrict women’s protections against discrimination in employment and reproductive matters, and ensconce, even further, the flow of corporate “persons” $$$ into all arenas of politics, while simultaneously diluting the votes of real flesh and blood people.

But I won’t.

Instead, a word about the impact of the Supreme Court on social movements. In the midst of Black History Month, screenings of Selma, and current movements against racialized police state violence, we must remember the significance of Brown v the Board of Education, Topeka Kansas (1954). Despite the practical limits of Brown in effecting desegregation or the failure to implement the directives of Brown II, there can be no denying that the ruling – “separate but equal is inherently unequal” – created a over-arching legal framework that emboldened the Civil Rights Movement.

The repudiation, at the Federal last word level, of the Jim Crow machinery set up in Plessy freed the Civil Rights Movement to pursue direct action civil disobedience with the confidence of victory. Certainly, there was the omnipresent risk/reality of brutal police response, extra-legal violence and death. But segregation could now be challenged at the local and state levels — the buses in Montgomery, the lunch counters in Greensboro, the beaches in Florida, everything in Birmingham – with the assurance that should the cases wend their way through the Federal Courts, the protesters would prevail. The highest Court in the land was 9 – 0, unanimously, on their side.

There are no such assurances today. To the contrary. The Roberts Court, in a series of heavily partisan 5-4 decisions, has largely undone the major legislative and judicial achievements of the Civil Rights Era, and dragged us back towards an Ante-Bellum landscape of extreme state’s rights. Read: state’s right to discriminate.

At the inspiring, poignant end of Selma, the teletype across the screen updates us as to the fate of protagonists. But missing is the fate of the signature legislation which resulted from the many bloody sundays, mondays, tuesdays. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 too lies dead – disemboweled by the Roberts Court in Shelby County v Holder (2013). The victory and sacrifice of so many, undone, by mere paper.

All of this is not to discourage the movements of this moment, but rather to say, Know the Terrain. The Supreme Court offers now no umbrella of support for demands of equality, inclusion, protection from State violence. We will not be saved. Our tactics, our strategies, our protests must take account of the current legal landscape. They must be bold imaginative, community-centered, and untethered to any expectation of sanctuary in the courts. They must operate outside the frame.

This is to say too, even to those who eschew electoral politics, keep a close eye on those nine robed judges and to the possibility of who may appoint them. It matters; their decisions shape the space for movements for decades, for generations not yet born, and mean the difference between raw repression and a small bit of breathing room.

And finally, this is to say that progress is not an uninterrupted forward motion, that no victory is guaranteed forever, Whatever we win today, we must be prepared to defend and re-defend without tire. For the long haul.


CI: Undercurrents of #Pointergate

November 12, 2014 By: nancy a heitzeg Category: 2014 Mid-term Elections, Anti-Racism, Criminal Injustice Series, Intersectionality, Prison Industrial Complex, Voting Rights

Criminal InJustice is a weekly series devoted to taking action against inequities in the U.S. criminal justice system. Nancy A. Heitzeg, Professor of Sociology and Race/Ethnicity, is the Editor of CI. Kay Whitlock, co-author of Queer (In)Justice, is contributing editor of CI. Criminal Injustice is published every Wednesday at 6 pm.

Undercurrents of #Pointergate ~ White Supremacist Policing and Racialized Voter Disenfranchisement
by nancy a heitzeg

Unless you have been in a media blackout, then surely the news of #Pointergate has come your way. It began with this inflammatory story last Thursday night on KSTP news. The provocative headline read: Mpls. Mayor Flashes Gang Sign with Convicted Felon; Law Enforcement Outraged.”

Old White Men Stoke Racialized Fears on KSTP TV

The photo of Mayor Betsy Hodges and Navell Gordon was taken at a get- out-the- vote event with Neighborhoods Organizing for Change  (more on NOC later).  Once everyone realized this was real and not some ludicrous Onion-esque parody, the reaction from Minneapolis residents was immediate; the hashtag #pointergate was created and trending within the hour. Since then the story has gone national with coverage that is focused on the blatant racism including the equation of the pointing with “gang signs”, and the smearing of Gordon as a “twice convicted felon.” The KSTP story was a textbook example of the racist conflation of Blackness with both criminality and gangs that pervades media and public perceptions. (For the best discussion of this dimension of these aspects of the story, please see the response from Minnesota Democratic Farmer Labor Party (DFL) Chair Ken Martin, Professor Nekima Levy -Pounds, “Dear White People: Mayor Betsy Hodges is Not in a Gang” and Melissa Pestroyrry-Harris’ interview with both Navell Gordon and Anthony Newby, Executive Director of Neighborhoods Organizing for Change.)

Questions also emerged with regard to the timing of the piece. The following day, the City of Minneapolis was about to introduce a pilot program that required Minneapolis Police to wear body cameras. This requirement has long been part of Mayor Hodges’ platform and one source of conflict between the Mayor and the police union over growing community demands for accountability. The other98 blog offers a timeline of the evolving tensions and a closer look into the events preceding the body cam announcement:

Battle of the Open Letters

… late September of 2014. Councilwoman Hodges was now Mayor Hodges, and as such was facing higher expectations from the community. On September 26, a coalition of local professors, religious leaders, community groups and others penned “An Open Letter to Mayor Betsy Hodges,” which was later published in the Star Tribune, a local paper. The letter laid out serious concerns about the conduct of the Minneapolis Police Department, particularly residents’ frustration with the behavior of Chief Harteau, who had abruptly dropped out of a listening session intended to address these very concerns. The letter urges Mayor Hodges to break her “silence” on the growing tension and start working to regain public trust of both the police department and local government.

Mayor Hodges responded on October 8 with an Open Letter of her own, emphasizing her commitment to “eliminating gaps based in race and place, growing inclusively, and running the city well for everyone.” The letter goes on to lay out, in exhaustive detail, the plans and goals Hodges had for improving relations between police and the community at large. Early in the letter, this passage appears:

Hundreds of police officers serve respectfully and collaboratively every day to keep people safe and make neighborhoods across our city stronger. But not all do: some officers abuse the trust that is afforded to them, and take advantage of their roles to do harm rather than prevent it. Minneapolis has, and has had, officers like that. These officers do not represent a majority of the department, but their behavior disrupts community trust for all officers in the community… This is why it is so important to check bad behavior and end it, once and for all.

Well. Minneapolis Police were pissed, to put it lightly. In the third and final entry of the Battle of Open Letters, the President of the Police Officers Federation of Minneapolis, John Delmonico, wrote a blistering reply to the Mayor, calling her words “repeated and personal slaps in the face to every member of the Minneapolis Police Department.” He accused her of painting all officers with the same unfair brush, and expressed anger that all of her plans for improving community relations involved changes in the department (Delmonico did not offer alternative plans, nor clarify as to what it would look like to reform the community rather than the police).

Certainly the KSTP story was a distraction from (and perhaps retaliation for) the announcement of the new body camera requirement. What has not yet been fully explicated in the #pointergate story, however, is a deeper discussion of the role of race in policing, including a new Minnesota ACLU Report on racial disparities in low level arrests, and the targeting of efforts to enfranchise Black voters.


Watch Live Coverage of 2014 Midterm Elections

November 04, 2014 By: seeta Category: 2014 Mid-term Elections, Civil Rights, Voting Rights, What People are Doing to Change the World

PBS NewsHour will stream its coverage, which is co-anchored by Gwen Ifill and Judy Woodruff, starting at 3pm PT / 6 pm ET.

CI: On Birmingham, #Ferguson and the Meaning of Movement

October 15, 2014 By: nancy a heitzeg Category: Anti-Racism, Arts and Culture, Civil Rights, Criminal Injustice Series, Intersectionality, Media Conglomeration, Voting Rights, What People are Doing to Change the World

Criminal InJustice is a weekly series devoted to taking action against inequities in the U.S. criminal justice system. Nancy A. Heitzeg, Professor of Sociology and Race/Ethnicity, is the Editor of CI. Kay Whitlock, co-author of Queer (In)Justice, is contributing editor of CI. Criminal Injustice is published every Wednesday at 6 pm.


On Birmingham, #Ferguson and the Meaning of Movement
by nancy a heitzeg

From the earliest days of unrest after the murder of Mike Brown, comparisons have been made to the Civil Rights Movement. Certainly Mike Brown himself evoked thoughts again of Emmett Till, as for 4 and one half hours, the whole watched as his body lay in the street. We saw what they had done to Leslie McSpadden’s boy. Then came the Ferguson Police Department with the dogs, reminiscent of Birmingham, the Bloody Sunday-like excesses of official response to non-violent protesters. And, in the 68 days since Mike Brown’s death from August 9th through #FergusonOctober, there have been unrelenting marches, protests, sit-ins, shut-downs, flash mobs,  and more.

The comparisons to the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 1960s have been furthered by both activists and media. 1964 = 2014. Ferguson = Birmingham. But does it ?

Although there are many points of comparison there are questions too. What has changed? What does that mean for movement vision and tactics today? There are many questions to consider– no concrete answers to had. Movements of course are organic – by their very nature , they evolve to address the issues of the time, and past movements are never a perfect template for present or future. Movements emerge and take on a life of their own that no amount of planning  or calculated questions can ever fully account for. But ask we must. And since History is a Weapon, Eyes on the Prize can serve as one of our guides.*


CI: Justice As Theft

June 11, 2014 By: nancy a heitzeg Category: Anti-Racism, Civil Rights, Corrupt Legislature, Criminal Injustice Series, Economic Terrorism, Education, Housing, Immigration, Intersectionality, LGBTQ, Poverty, Voting Rights, Workers' Rights

Criminal InJustice is a weekly series devoted to taking action against inequities in the U.S. criminal justice system. Nancy A. Heitzeg, Professor of Sociology and Race/Ethnicity, is the Editor of CI. Kay Whitlock, co-author of Queer (In)Justice, is contributing editor of CI. Criminal Injustice is published every Wednesday at 6 pm.

Justice As Theft: Into the Twilight Zone
by Kay Whitlock

In 2011, Tonya McDowell, a homeless woman from Bridgeport, Connecticut, was charged with first degree (felony) larceny  and conspiracy to commit larceny for enrolling her 6-year-old son in Brookside Elementary School in the community of Norwalk.  Because McDowell and her son did not legally reside in Norwalk, the rationale for the charges was theft of $15,686 in educational costs from the Norwalk public school system. She faced a possible sentence of 20 years in prison. Moreover, McDowell’s babysitter was evicted from public housing because she apparently assisted by providing  false documents necessary for enrolling the young boy.

McDowell and her son are black; the Norwalk public school system is predominantly white – and therefore better funded than the Bridgeport system, in which people of color predominate. Essentially, she was charged with “stealing” a good public education for her son, who is entitled to public education, but not, presumably, a good one.

This prosecution was outrageous, right?  Yes – by any reasonable standard of human decency, anyway. But we live in a societal Twilight Zone in which the often-subterranean currents of the dominant U.S. public imagination respond to virtually all claims to social and economic justice as some form of theft, with all of the dissonance, danger, anxiety, emotional vulnerability, defensiveness, and fury associated with its evocation.


CI: The Time Has Come

May 21, 2014 By: nancy a heitzeg Category: Anti-Racism, Arts and Culture, Civil Rights, Corrupt Judiciary, Corrupt Legislature, Criminal Injustice Series, Economic Terrorism, Education, Housing, Intersectionality, Poverty, Prison Industrial Complex

Criminal InJustice is a weekly series devoted to taking action against inequities in the U.S. criminal justice system. Nancy A. Heitzeg, Professor of Sociology and Race/Ethnicity, is the Editor of CI. Kay Whitlock, co-author of Queer (In)Justice, is contributing editor of CI. Criminal Injustice is published every Wednesday at 6 pm.

The Time Has Come
Editor’s Note from nancy a heitzeg

It is a week where there is too much to say, so instead we will say very little. We stand in the shadows of the anniversaries of the never-implemented Brown decision, and the day Philadelphia Police Department said “Let the Fire Burn!”We note the occasion of the birthday’s of Malcolm X, Lorraine Hansbury, and Ho Chi Minh, as we still demand an end to mass youth incarceration, brace ourselves for a “debate” about reparations,  and await word as to whether a Black Woman has any Ground to Stand.

Let us reflect on this recent history, not on what has been won, but what is left to be done. A History, that is neither some disregarded dustbin, nor a mausoleum/museum filled with past relics of partial victories.

History is Alive. And History is A Weapon.

Use it.

Eyes on the Prize: The Time Has Come (1964-66)
After a decade-long cry for justice, a new sound is heard in the civil rights movement: the insistent call for power. Malcolm X takes an eloquent nationalism to urban streets as a younger generation of black leaders listens. In the South, Stokely Carmichael and the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) move from “Freedom Now!” to “Black Power!” as the fabric of the traditional movement changes.


CI: The Fallacy of Right-Wing Appeals to Race in Criminal Justice Reform

April 23, 2014 By: nancy a heitzeg Category: 2014 Mid-term Elections, 2016 Election, Anti-Racism, Civil Rights, Corrupt Legislature, Criminal Injustice Series, Economic Terrorism, Intersectionality, Prison Industrial Complex, Smoke and Mirrors

Criminal InJustice is a weekly series devoted to taking action against inequities in the U.S. criminal justice system. Nancy A. Heitzeg, Professor of Sociology and Race/Ethnicity, is the Editor of CI. Kay Whitlock, co-author of Queer (In)Justice, is contributing editor of CI. Criminal Injustice is published every Wednesday at 6 pm.

The Fallacy of Right-Wing Appeals to Race in Criminal Justice Reform
by Nancy A. Hetzeg

Mid-November 2014.  Ferguson and cities across the world took to the streets in continued protest of the police homicide of Mike Brown and a seemingly endless list of mostly young Black males killed by police — 1 every 28 hours. The events in Ferguson had shone a light – not just on the anti-Blackness that shapes policing/police killings in the U.S.A., but towards the entire criminal legal system, one emergent out of slavery and always attendant to policing and punishment by race, class, and gender. The Ferguson Movement had sparked, too, not just demands for the indictment of Darren Wilson or reforms of the police, but calls for -finally! – an uprooting of the structural inequality which pervades the system.

Worlds apart, in sterile San Diego hotel conference rooms, “policy makers, experts, and other key decision makers from more than 30 states… [met] to discuss the past, present, and future of the Justice Reinvestment Initiative (JRI)” convened at the Justice Reinvestment National Summit . “Success” in “reform” was touted by reference to a checklist, one devoid of the devilish details of definitions (Mississippi’s reclassification of drug offenses actually increased penalties) or actual incarceration outcomes (a tiny footnote states “The number of policy reforms in a state does not correspond with the impact on prison populations or costs”). One devoid too of discussion of demographics or any indication that actual people — overwhelming people of color, the poor and those otherwise outside the bounds of “normative” white middle/upper class hetero-patriarchy –  are the subject/object of these policies.

How is it possible to advocate for criminal justice reform without taking account of the central role that race and class play in shaping the past and present of criminal injustice? As we asked in Smoke and Mirrors: Essential Questions:

 Why don’t most of the foundations and advocacy organizations participating in the “prison reform” public relations blitz talk specifically about the “overcriminalization” of people of color, particularly Black, Latino/a, and American Indian/Indigenous communities?  Why don’t they make clear recommendations regarding the racially-biased enforcement of “race neutral” laws and law enforcement policies, ranging from “stop and frisk” to “gang” laws and policies, in and out of prison?  Why isn’t structural/systemic racism explicitly named as the major contributor to mass incarceration?  Where are the solutions that address larger societal contributors, such as poverty, segregation, defunded public educational institutions,  racial profiling and more?

In short, it isn’t possible to address the current crisis of mass incarceration without explicitly naming the racist and classist roots. The criminal legal system, at the core, involves the policing and punishment of race — the protection of whiteness as both literal and figurative property and the repression of Blackness in particular. Slave Codes become Black Codes/Jim Crow, that echoed the restrictions associated with slavery, re-inscribed the property interests of “whiteness,” and criminalized a range of activities only if the perpetrator was Black.

In the Post Civil Rights Era, there has been a corresponding shift from de jure racism codified explicitly into the law and legal systems to a de facto racism where people of color, especially African Americans, are subject to unequal protection of the laws, excessive surveillance, extreme segregation and neo-slave labor via incarceration, all in the name of “crime control.” “Law and order” criminal justice policies are all guided by thinly coded appeals to white fears of high crime neighborhoods, “crack epidemics,” gang proliferation, juvenile super–predators, urban unrest, school violence, and more. In all these case, the subtext reads clearly — fear of brown and especially black people.

Colorblind racism and “tough on crime” combine in deadly fashion in the War on Drugs, with its attendant spike in mass incarceration. This is a 40+ year project that now indicts both Republican and Democratic administrations. It is no mistake that the subtitle of Michelle Alexander’s epic indictment of The New Jim Crow is this – Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness. The Drug War, from start to finish has always been racist: draconian sentences, crack v powder disparities, police patrol patterns, stop/frisk, and racial profiling, arrests, convictions, sentences, incarceration, and collateral consequences all fall heaviest on Blacks.

Nonetheless, Right has managed to avoid any discussion of  what they now refer to as “racial disparity” until recently. Ironically, the crowd that brought us the “Southern Strategy,” Willie Horton, and the coded race-baiting of “law and order” that they created, now claims that they are best equipped to reform the criminal legal system. Don’t be fooled. The new-found mention of race is both politically expedient and deceptive. It is explicitly argued that criminal justice reform is the “GOP’s best hope to reach minority voters.” This theme has been heavily worked since last summer, when, at a Koch Brothers panel,  right-wing “reform” was touted as a bipartisan,  “uniting left and right,” and a harmonic convergence  of “unexpected alliances” featuring select NAACP members and most recently Van Jones. This meme has been buttressed by the GOP’s libertarian wing, particularly via Senator Rand Paul, with the illusion that reducing Federal mandatory minimums for drug crimes. decriminalizing marijuana, and opposing the Federal militarization of the police somehow – magically – will address the underlying structural racism and classism at the heart of the criminal legal system. That merely changing the law will cause any race and class gulfs in criminal legal control to  “wither away”.

It won’t.  In fact, a closer look at this approach suggests that rather than reducing racial gulfs in arrest, prosecution and incarceration, these proposed reforms may actually magnify them and serve to solidify the criminalizing archetypes noted by Frederick Douglas nearly 150 years ago  as “the imputation of crime to color”.  What the Right actually means to do is best revealed by closely examining their central positions on overcriminalization and law enforcement, the issues most relevant to our discussion here.

Overcriminalization of Whom?

When many of us hear the term overcriminalization, we are imagining decriminalization of drugs and petty nonviolent offenses such as loitering that are often used to criminalize the poor or serve as a pretext for racial profiling, legalization of marijuana and/or other drugs, and an end to the proliferation of laws that criminalize style, often with race-neutral language but racialized intent.

This is not what the Right means. In fact, they have been largely silent on or supportive of the increased rash of laws which criminalize poverty and homelessness and create crimes of style which continue to ensnare people of color and the LGBTQ community into the widening criminal legal net. Even though overcriminalization has been a central theme in the Right on Crime agenda since their founding in 2010, their understanding of it is overtly shaped by the central pillars of state’s rights/anti-Federal government and private profiteering. Overcriminalization is the new Right on Crime code for deregulation of corporate and business activities. “Thousands of harmless activities are now classified as crimes in the United States. These are not typical common law crimes such as murder, rape, or theft.  Instead they encompass a series of business activities.” Undergirding this is a rejection of Federal authority and an explicit call for states’ rights.

The Conservative Solution

• Stop creating new criminal offenses as a method of regulating business activities. Regulation is better handled through fines and market forces, not the heavy stigma of criminal sanctions

• Avoid licensing new occupations and revise laws to eliminate criminal penalties that are currently associated with many occupations.

• Ensure that an appropriate culpable mental state is included in the elements of all offenses.

• Return the responsibility for prosecuting and punishing traditional crimes to the states.

• Revise criminal laws to remove ambiguities and consolidate redundant laws to help prevent prosecutorial abuse.

At rock bottom,  criminal justice reform for the Right is about protecting corporate profits from pesky Federal governmental regulations that seek to protect consumers, workers, investors, the environment and the general public from economic and physical harm, This position, for example, rejects the criminal charges in a case like BP’s Deepwater Horizon gulf disaster, suggesting that the market or Louisiana were best equipped to handle this. It is evidenced too in the early debates over “food police” which rejects food labeling or criminal penalties for poisoning small children with E-coli laden hamburgers. As illustrated by Radley Balko in his Cato Institute days, this position suggests that we all live in a world of personal consumer “choices” where we can all “equally” decide whether or not to eat junk food or GMOs or get in our Mercedes and drive out of that food desert. It is a world without structural inequality as an impediment to “choice”; there is nothing but “personal responsibility,” a loaded term too often touted in all right-wing criminal justice reform efforts.

Even as the Right has expanded their current rhetoric to include some lessening of penalties with regard to the War on Drugs, the states’ rights agenda and the primacy of private profit underlie these efforts. Rand Paul’s much touted legislative proposals are all targeted at the Federal level, leaving states to their own devices, however draconian. Further, as we have seen in Community Corrections: Profiteering, Corruption and Widening the Net, diverting drug offenders from prison under these right-wing reforms, does not lessen legal control, but in fact, serves to create new pathways for profiteering and an expanding web of legal and economic control.

Beyond this, failure to address the structural racism and classism at the heart of the Drug “War” may result in increased disparity as these “colorblind “ reforms are enacted. Consider recent  changes in marijuana legislation in California, Colorado, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Washington. Two of those states (Colorado and Washington) completely legalized possession of small amounts of marijuana for adults 21 and older, while the rest reduced criminal penalties for small amounts across all ages. A new report from the Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice found this:

  • “All five states experienced substantial declines in marijuana possession arrests. The four states with available data also showed unexpected drops in marijuana felony arrests.
  • States that decriminalized marijuana for all ages experienced the largest decreases in marijuana arrests or cases, led by drops among young people and for low-level possession.
  •  Staggering racial disparities remain — and in some cases are exacerbated — following marijuana reforms. African Americans are still more likely to be arrested for marijuana offenses after reform than all other races and ethnicities were before reform.”

In the states studied, African Americans  were more than 5 times more likely than all other races/ethnicities to be arrested for marijuana even after legalization or decriminalization. This result is not an aberration. Nationally, according to the ACLU in The War on Marijuana in Black and White, “Marijuana use is roughly equal among Blacks and whites, yet Blacks are 3.73 times as likely to be arrested for marijuana possession.” Consider, too, that as a recent report from The Minnesota ACLU reveals, Blacks in the City of Minneapolis were 11.5 times more likely to be arrested than a white individual for marijuana possession – this, despite the fact, that possession of small amounts of marijuana has been decriminalized in the state of Minnesota since 1976.

Clearly, calls for reduced penalties in Drug War legislation are not enough to address the structural racism and classim that underpins criminal injustice, and the Right remains silent here. Overcriminalization alone is not a singular issue; policing plays a significant role in shaping the race, class and gender contours of the criminal legal system.

Law Enforcement: The Missing Mention of Racial Profiling

Given their Law and Order history, it is unsurprising that the Right’s plans for criminal justice reform include no critique of police/policing. The Right on Crime position on Law Enforcement emphasizes the use of more technology, surveillance, collusion with private security, and of course, profit for the companies who produce monitoring equipment and the like.

The Conservative Solution

• Increase the utilization of data-driven policing and related performance measures such as CompSTAT and CLEAR.
• Involve private security in data-driven policing to expand the knowledge base and expedite responses.
• Expand the use of GPS monitoring of parolees and probationers.

More recently, the libertarian right (along with segments of the left) has decried the increased militarization of police, made fully possible by Ronald Reagan.  Reagan declared the War on Drugs a “national security” issue and encouraged Congressional passage of the Military Cooperation with Law Enforcement Act of 1981. The Military Cooperation with Law Enforcement Act allowed local, state, and federal police access to military bases, research, and equipment, and further allowed military personnel to train police. The floodgates now open, additional legislation in the late 1980s and 1990s permitted the National Guard to aid in drug investigations/arrests and authorized the Pentagon to donate surplus military equipment to local police departments. Of course, this situation was further exacerbated by 9/11.

However opposed many of us are to this merger of police and military, a focus on police militarization as the essence of current problems ignores the long history of state terror against communities of color and the extent to which a militarized response has always been the first resort here. It is insufficient, as Rand Paul recently did, to stumble into Ferguson claiming that it is militarized policing that makes Africans Americans “feel as if their [Federal] government is targeting them.” The Federal government did not kill Michael Brown; an employee of the City of Ferguson did. Militarized policing did not kill Michael Brown; plain old every day racial profiling did.

Here the Right is silent. Nothing in their proposed criminal justice reform addresses the rampant racial profiling and attendant police murders furthered by “Broken Windows”, public order policing and the dubious Compstat data that legitimates it.  Nothing to say about GOP-led stop and frisk initiatives in NYC that resulted in nearly 700,000 stops per year, 87 percent of them Black or Latino. Nothing to say about ongoing police harassment of the homeless and those try to feed them. Nothing to say about racial disprortionality in lower-level arrests that can only result from racial targeting, such as statistics like those seen in Minneapolis where Blacks are 8.86 times more likely to be arrested than a white individual for disorderly conduct, 7.54 times more likely to be arrested  for vagrancy; and 16.39 times more likely to be arrested than a white juvenile for curfew/loitering.”

These are their policies. And when the silence is broken, it is filled more often that not, with some race-baiting screed such as that exhibited by former NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani – yes one of the architects of Broken Windows – where victims of police violence are “thuggified,” police protected at all costs, and white supremacy further enshrined.

 Which Side Are You On?

As cynical latecomers to a discussion of the role of race in the criminal legal system, the Right hopes to garner a few votes and perhaps further the illusion of  a “bipartisan” agenda here.  This is a calculated effort to expand their demographic reach, but there is an extreme irony in states’ rights supporters of Stand Your Groundopponents of the 14th Amendment, the Voting Rights Act and more making coded appeals to the Black vote that they are simultaneously attempting to suppress.

Further, the Right’s plans for criminal justice reform may ultimately magnify the structural racism and classism at the root of the creation, proliferation  and maintenance of the prison industrial complex. In addition to the examples already cited, there are rumblings in the ostensibly race-neutral conservative rhetoric that suggest that further divisions be made between “reformable” offenders and irredeemable “others,” now  relegated to even harsher conditions, and new calls for “personal responsibility,” respectability politics, and ultimately, increased conflation of Blackness with crime.

These are the sorts of smoke and mirrors proposals that are promoted by Koch-funded panels held in those sterile hotel conference rooms, devoid of demographics, of real people and the communities most impacted. And, devoid of the bold confrontation of structural racism and classism that is emerging in the streets of Ferguson and so many other communities. Choose your vision.

Many, eager for any sign of relief after 40 years in the mass incarceration desert, will be ready to support anything that looks like “reform.” The urge to embrace superficially sane-sounding criminal justice reforms is understandable. The era of mass incarceration must end.

But please do not be tempted to support policies that seem “reasonable” in the short run, but in the end make the prison industrial complex even more entrenched with new avenues for profiteering, and new colorblind policies that solidify structural racism. Make no mistake; any attempt at  “reforming” criminal injustice must take account of its roots in white supremacist capitalist hetero-patriarchy, must propose remedies that address the roles that race, class, and gender play in the both the creation and operation of the prison industrial complex, must ask hard questions about the purported need for extensive control of any sort for the vast majority of those who are criminalized.

We must ask for nothing less.

Or we will be forty years on asking again:  how was it possible we ever thought that the Master’s Tools could – somehow? – Dismantle the Master’s very own House?

Originally published for Criminal InJustice  at Critical Mass Progress.