reflections on police brutality through the lens of race, class, and sexual identities

Review of Gore, Dayo Folayan, Tamara Jones, and Joo-Hyun Kang. 2001. “Organizing at the
Intersections: A Roundtable Discussion of Police Brutality through the Lens of Race, Class, and Sexual Identities.” Pp. 251-269 in Zero Tolerance: Quality of Life and the New Police Brutality in New York City, edited by Andrea McArdle and Tanya Erzen. New York City: New York University.

Much of the research and analysis on police violence focuses on the ways in which people of color (especially African Americans, and, increasingly Latinos) and poor folks are disproportionately brutalized by the police. In this roundtable discussion, members of the Audre Lorde Project’s Working Group on Police Brutality (Dayo Gore and Tamara Jones) and executive director Joo-Hyun Kang discuss the many ways that police brutality intersects not only with race and class, but also gender and sexuality. The Audre Lorde Project (ALP) is a center for lesbian, gay, bisexual, two-spirit, and transgender (LGBTST) people of color organizing for social and economic justice. They are based in New York City and their organizing is mainly focused in NYC.

At the onset the group broadened the definition of police brutality beyond physical attacks and murder to include more subtle forms of violence. Examples given were police not taking crimes against community members seriously and not properly investigating reports; verbal harassment and attacks by the police; police making illegal stops, searches, and seizures; and the community’s exposure to near-constant surveillance. Kang points out that this pervasive violence is built into some of the standard operating procedures of police work (e.g., NYPD officers can wait up to 48-hours to obtain legal counsel and be questioned about the shooting incidents, which can be used to cover up evidence and allows time for the police to “get their stories straight”). That these more subtle forms of violence are so ubiquitous makes it challenging to organize against them because they become normalized and, for some, there’s a perception that this (especially the surveillance) is a small price to pay for the safety of the community. (This “small price to pay” argument came up in recent meeting with organizers at LA CAN; one of the co-directors was saying that outside the community people get up in arms about the surveillance but, inside, downtown’s new residents have accepted that it’s a small price to pay for their safety and that once they get rid of the undesirables, they’ll be able to get rid of the surveillance.)

Another challenge for people uncovering and resisting police violence is to organize build coalitions across race, class, gender, and sexuality lines: “As activists against police violence we need to be aware of the ways in which oppression can work both against us and against others who may not be exactly like us. If straight activists never integrate gender and sexuality into their analyses and action programs, then they are supporting and strengthening police abuse of power against women and LGBTST peoples. The same logic holds for white LGBTST activists on this issue; without a solid anti-racist stance, you’re not being effective. It’s like fighting a Hydra—you need to chop off all the heads to kill it” (Jones, 261). Members of ALP point out that while analysts of police violence often talk about the ways that people of color and poor people are over-policed, it’s harder for most people to recognize that people who do not conform to gender stereotypes or who are perceived as nonheterosexual are subject to greater police surveillance and violence.

Not recognizing or organizing around gender and sexuality biases in policing reinforces the susceptibility of people who do not conform to normative conceptions of gender and sexuality to police violence. With their discussion of Abner Louima—a Haitian man who was severely brutalized and sodomized at the hands of NYPD officers, ALP members talk about how media constantly underscored that he was not gay, as he was perceived to be by police, and that he was a legal immigrant. Both of these things, his sexuality and his status as a legal immigrant were used in establishing him as a “good victim,” someone people could and should rally behind. Though this issue of immigration status is not discussed in much detail in the roundtable or in most other non-immigration-specific accounts of police violence, it is another layer in police violence. Joo-Hyun points out, “The question was never raised, but what if he had been gay? Had he been gay, or transgender, it’s hard to imagine that degree of public outrage even if it had been the exact same incident.” Similarly, one could add “undocumented” or “illegal” to Joo-Hyun’s point. As an “illegal” immigrant, Louima would not have been a “good victim” either.

Another key point made in the roundtable is the tendency for women to underreport violence they experience, whether it be police violence or otherwise. Joo-Hyun expressed skepticism about media coverage and research that suggests that men are more likely to be victims of police violence than women. She says, “I guess having grown up as a woman in this society, we often know that our histories are so hidden that it leads me to question whether we can believe current statistics and conventional wisdom” (263). Joo-Hyun went on to say that women of color experience so many incidents of racist, sexist, and homophobic violence each day, that a verbal attack from a cop may just get lumped in with the rest. “If we reported all the acts of violence against us as women, every day, some of us would be reporting twenty-five incidents a week” (264).

.

when i have enough space and quiet,
i begin thinking in poems.
sometimes they are happy poems.
sometimes sad.
mostly i just try to tell it like it is.

this use to be my playground?

i don’t have much of a memory from before 1st or 2nd grade really (6-7 years old). many of the details i know of my life before that come in the form of stories from various sources, who tend to offer unreliable and sometimes contradictory accounts. prior to my dad getting custody of me when i was about 6, i lived with my mom in the st. johns neighborhood of portland for about a year. my aunt has lived in st. johns for a few years now and i visit her fairly frequently. until recently, nothing really looked familiar to me, but i always sort of felt like something familiar could be right around the corner. and there it was, last february.

my partner and i were visiting and took a walk. on the way back, i tensed up as we approached and walked through these vines. the tension wasn’t attached to a specific memory, just the fact that i remembered anything at all.

things that i had previously remembered about the place/time:
1. watching cartoons at my neighbor’s house while my mom was away. the same neighbors my (step-)grandma said that my mom intended to give me away to. he-man and she-ra were often (once?) on in the morning.
2. one of my stuffed animals getting ruined in a bucket of oil.
3. a spider biting me between the eyes one night, which made my eyes swell up for a few days.
4. sleeping behind the couch on the floor in the living room when my mom got a boyfriend and i no longer slept in her bed.
5. my mom using the money from my piggy–actually, i think it was a multicolored froggy–bank to get us 4th of july fireworks.
6. and then the talk–my mom expressing regret but saying that she thought it would be best if i lived with my dad. i remember thinking she was right, no disagreement there. she acted real sorry and i probably acted real sorry too, but i was not. i was very well behaved in those days.
like that time she commented on how sweet i was behaving after church. we had stopped at the grocery store and i held my hands together pointer finger to pointer finger, thumbs rolled under, and fingers around, a stolen roll of lifesavers.

when i came back in august i decided that i wanted to remember more. to come up with my own, reliable, stories. at least i would locate what i knew in its proper place.

so, between my dad and i, we figured out the address of the shack my mother and i lived in that year. except the address and the shack no longer exist. instead, if this is right, the shack was torn down and this was built in its place:

and if that’s right. this is where i ate cereal and watched he-man in the morning while my mom was out (working?):

and this house was next door, facing our cross street:

and this was at the end of our street:

but how could i not remember such a landmark? i can’t say for sure that this was my street. but the address fits.

and then there is school. i was told that i was kicked out of catholic kindergarten. or i made it up. i really don’t know. but in my(?) version i accidentally flipped off a nun while doing sign language to “silent night.” sounds sort of plausible. and then i went somewhere else. was this one of my schools?

or this?

i don’t know. though during this (october) visit it occurs to me that it is most likely that this is one of them:

this park seems familiar.

especially the teeter totters.

oddly, this is the one thing i remember for certain. i can say without a doubt in my mind that this is where we bought fireworks that year:

lapd “cleaning up” skid row

today i broke protocol. i yelled at a police officer while on community watch with la can. it was stop two of the night.

stop one:
we arrived on the scene to find four black men handcuffed and facing a wall outside the union rescue mission. we talked to onlookers and asked for information. no one had any. we waited, watched, observed, documented. three police cars (a fourth rolled by); five police (seven for a moment). what i saw: the men handcuffed. ids being returned with an officer slipping them into the men’s pockets. one officer digging through a man’s jacket and then his pant pocket. and then, one by one, the handcuffs were unlocked. the men were free to go.

so we asked one of the guys–the one who i saw being searched by an officer–what had happened, why they had been stopped and handcuffed. he said when he asked the officer said that the men had been observed “standing around.” the man asked the officer how long he had observed this. the officer replied “between 30 seconds and one minute.” so, it was up against the wall. a fellow community watch member asked, “did they ask you if you were on parole or probation?” “yes,” said the man. “did they search you?” “yes,” he said, “and he was really disrespectful–sexually harassed me.” we prompted the man to ask one of the officers for his card. the officer replied, “you can get it at the station.”

a few things:
it is against the law for lapd to stop and question people about their parole/probation status and to conduct warrantless searches of this manner.
lapd officers are supposed to provide their business cards/identifying information when asked. the officer suggesting that the man go to the station to get it served as a threat to the man who quickly backed off.

stop two:
just around the corner. this time in front of the los angeles mission. homeless men were waiting for beds. the police, some of the same officers from stop one, came and began confiscating and throwing away any of the men’s belongings that were touching the ground as they waited. a cleaning crew from the central city east association then came through, sweeping up debris and asking us and the men to move aside as they swept the sidewalk. (they did not clean the other side of the street, which was equally littered but did not contain homeless people waiting for shelter beds.)

one officer began confiscating milk crates, putting them in the back of his car. at some point there was a little back and forth between the officer and those of us on community watch. usually we are very focused. day after day we watch and document the civil rights violations that are occurring in downtown la. it wasn’t a new situation: warrantless searches. harrassment. rubber gloves as belongings are confiscated. the flip attitude of the officers: “no pictures, please,” said one with a movie star grin. “why do you hate me,” he asked.

i wanted to tell him, look, it’s not about you as an individual.
it’s about the institution you work for.
the lapd.
and it’s about what you’re doing here, to this community.

and so i did.
it seemed like more in the moment.
but i’m pretty sure that’s all it was.

he told me that maybe i should try to do something to help the community. like pick up trash. like he was.

poem(ish)

sunset turns to twilight leaving me looking for lights on in any of the boats docked at the marina
my bike pants beneath me as i contemplate:
a. how it is that a bike can sound like a thirsty dog
b. how it is that the idea of living on a boat has made its way into my head

b.
this thought mulls around with the others—
the thoughts which occupied the better portion of one los angeles winter wherein i imagined myself a hobo of the train-hopping variety
it’s in there with my burlesque stage name which shall only be revealed after i run away to join the (very sexy) circus

this living-on-a-boat idea, though, it’s the practical parallel to my train-dwelling, garter-belt-wearing fantasies
i could move to a boat today and relatively little would change
my address could be within a mile of what it is now
i could live and work and write from a boat
i just have to figure a few things out, like, can i get wi-fi on the water?

a.
i don’t know, but
the air smells of diesel and ocean water that’s waves have been broken
fake waterfalls are lit up in starburst candy colors: cherry, lemon, orange
the bridge is a neon caterpillar—wearing green and blue and purple vertical stripes

and the people
families drawn out of hot apartments to the cool edges of long beach
a boy asking his peers, “could you or could you not …”
each bend and pier holds people—alone and together—silent and staring beyond the water
a man carries a bucket
a man and a woman sit on a bench, leaving room for the somebody they are talking about between them. “my bitch” the man starts; he corrects himself: “my girl”
a group of men laughing, calling their friend “cabrón”

people
people
people
out but in
for a second i step out and just feel the perfect wind
and, pulling myself back in, i think
will it ever feel this good again?

oh my god
oh, my God
yes, it will

exporting “zero tolerence” policing

Reviewing Smith, N. 2001. “Global Social Cleansing: Postliberal Revanchism and the Export of Zero
Tolerance.” Social Justice, 28(3): 68-74. Available online: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb3427/is_3_28/ai_n28888957/

While most of the research discussed thus far focuses on examples of order-maintenance policing in the United States, Smith (2001) argues that zero tolerance is being exported globally “at lightening speed” (XX). He notes that a visit to Berlin by William Bratton (between his New York and LA gigs) was followed by the implementation of NYPD-style computerized surveillance of homeless people. Smith discusses similar developments in New Zealand, Australia, Brazil, Argentina and England. Like other scholars (e.g., Gilbert 2008; Parenti 1999), Smith ties the proliferation of zero tolerance to global economic restructuring, or what he calls “postliberal globalization.” According to Smith, this restructuring includes a project of social cleansing, which is packaged and sold as a necessity to maintain “decency” and “civility”—terms which are defined through Eurocentric and class-privileged lenses—in order to reduce crime. However, the rhetoric doesn’t match the reality. Take for example the fact that, “violent crime peaked in New York City in 1990 and was already 20% below its peak in 1994, the year zero tolerance was implemented” (XX). Instead of a crime reduction strategy, Smith argues that zero tolerance is “a rapidly crystallizing antidemocratic form of global social control”—one that is rooted in revenge for the successes of the social movements of the 1960s (Smith cites feminist, civil rights, immigrant, and union movements as examples) (XX; XX).

You can have marriage equality AND revolution. Right?

Tuesday, May 26th

10am: California Supreme Court upholds Prop 8—the ballot initiative that denies same-sex couples marriage rights

I am in an appointment till 10:45am, so when I get home at 11am, the first thing I check is the LA Times website.

From there I twit, er, tweet:

11:01am: RT @BreakingNews CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT DECLARES 18,000 EXISTING SAME-SEX MARRIAGES VALID BUT UPHOLDS PROPOSITION 8

11:03am: RT @AlterNet: Shameful: California Upholds Proposition 8 http://tinyurl.com/o746ut

11:04am: RT @ccj*: or we could put more faith in love and liberation than we put in the state (re marriage)

*I have shortened the names of non-blog/media projects/orgs.

And, then in twitter-sized chunks:

11:09am: marriage for all people (of legal age*, who desire it) is an important issue of equality as well as separation of church and state. which is why i am sharing with you my commitment to not get married until marriage equality is a reality.**

*Did I really need to write this? Yes. There are many people who are in my social-networking stream who I could see taking it there: “If we let gay people marry, then what’s next? Pedophiles marrying children? People marrying animals?” Surprisingly, there was none of this chatter on Tuesday. All was quiet on the anti-gay front (at least in my stream). “Why do you have such people in your steam?” I imagine you asking. Well, there was a time when I used to disengage from anyone who wasn’t as radical as I perceived myself to be, and I found that to be really isolating and ineffective in really CHANGING anything. To a certain extent, I buy into the liberal education-as-the-answer “contact hypothesis” sort of approach to relationships (though not fully, hence the “to a certain extent”). I also recognize the need for separation and strategery. (I also acknowledge that strategery is not recognized as a real word. And, also, language is constantly evolving, so maybe it will be one day.)

**I felt a little conflicted about putting this commitment out there. I’ve had this perspective for a long time and have articulated it as one reason to not marry—but not AS my reason to not marry. I did qualify this commitment by later writing, “i may never marry, but that is another issue that doesn’t have to do with marriage equality.” I have also said in the past that I don’t feel the need to “register my love with the state.” I have also considered, but not too seriously, marrying friends who could benefit from immigration status and my partner if it meant securing healthcare for him. And that’s where I begin to feel conflicted about the current push for marriage equality. Why do some people get basic rights because they are able/willing to marry another person who is privileged enough to have healthcare, citizenship, etc.?

11:28am: Empty words? “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

11:44am: RT @lbreport: LBReport.com has full text of CA Supreme Court opinion upholding Prop 8, plus reactions as received at: www.lbreport.com

1:22pm: RT @racialjustice: I Don’t Want Marriage, I Want Equity: http://tr.im/mt9x

And: RT @bilericoproject: New on TBP: Prop 8 is a Distraction, or: NOW can we Dump Gay Marriage as a Cause? http://tinyurl.com/pqbkc6 *

*So, while I do think these critiques of marriage are important, I still think fighting for marriage equality is important. ‘Cuz last I checked “straight” people are still getting married (and divorced) in droves, and special rights are still conferred on those people. As long as that’s happening, then marriage equality is worth fighting for. Not your battle? Okay. Is universal healthcare a better battle? Sure. Immigration reform? Yes. Prison reform/abolition? Absolutely. But getting rid of such a basic inequality is key to … Is this right? I am still figuring out how I really feel about it. I just feel like don’t shit all over marriage equality just ‘cuz you think there are more important things to fight for. Like, voting rights aren’t that radical, but if LGBTQ folks didn’t have the right to vote, um, that would be an important struggle, no?

3:08pm:@pp hear, hear!*

*A response to pp’s tweets: “here is the one question about marriage equity that really resonates for me: As for the issue of health care, why should marriage be the way to guarantee something so basic? that’s the argument that resonates… arguments revolving around whether the state ‘recognizes’ a commitment – which usually deride such an impulse – are well-intentioned but, for me, misguided. the state is not going to cease to exist; I’m a socialist, I WANT a powerful state intermediary. so state recognition doesn’t disturb me. but if it deprives people of rights like health care? that does. also my ideas about the State are not so monolithic… like universal health care can only become a reality once it’s adopted at federal level – but the ways that access, coverage are determined should be up to communities.”*

*Well, I already said it, “hear, hear!” Also, pp is getting married in September and despite my declaration to not get married until same-sex couples have the right to marry, I was thrilled to get her wedding invitation in the mail on Wednesday. And as I said in an online exchange with someone who is getting married in part to secure much-needed medical benefits for herself, I ”understand that there are many considerations people take into account when deciding whether or not to marry (when they have the choice to decide).” But I made my declaration because of the diversity of friends and family in my “social-networking stream.” I thought it might be useful or interesting to put another perspective out there. I’ve heard about people using their weddings as a platform to discuss this inequality. But I feel like my online version of a soapbox is just as effective and a lot less expensive.

6:57pm: heading to prop 8 march and rally … #rejectprop8*

*And so I went to this protest because it was a big day and a big blow to a lot of my friends and neighbors. Tony and I walked a few blocks from our apartment building to the start of the march, then we marched, and rallied, and held hands as we walked back home. Will we make the trip to “meet in the middle”, to rally in Fresno tomorrow? No. Will we give gobs of money to overturning Prop 8? Well, we don’t have “gobs” to give, but we probably will give some. Will we continue to teach and learn and organize and struggle and look for ways to build and expand our notions of community? No doubt about it. But this isn’t an either/or thing, you can have marriage equality AND revolution.

notes on challenging the growth machine

Growth as a measure of success is another troupe of neoliberalism that impacts LA’s Skid Row population. Following the “growth is good” theme, downtown LA is currently experiencing a “revitalization”—which includes the proliferation of condos, restaurants, and services which cater to people with incomes and/or credit much higher than the majority of the area’s pre-revitalization population. Logan and Molotch (2007) [1984] argue that “local conflicts over growth are central to the organization of cities” (xxvii). Borrowing Marxian terms while expanding the overly deterministic framework, Logan and Molotch discuss the tension between “exchange value” and “use value” and the actors tied to each. Exchange value is gained by making money off the land, whereas use value comes from people actually using the land and communities attached to it as part of their daily lives. The concept of the “growth machine” is central to Logan and Molotch’s work because they argue that it is those for whom “the city is their business” that are dominant in the structuring and governance of US cities (they also note that this model is proliferating globally, informed by the logic of free-market capitalism).

Despite the “growth is good” mantra, Logan and Molotch find that in many cases the growth agenda actually erodes the standard of living for local residents. This is especially the case in poor communities of color:

Over the long haul of US history, such neighborhoods have been the dumping grounds for waste and first candidates for other forms of disruption. Disinvestment lowers use values as buildings crumble, streets become less safe, and public health dangers emerge. When growth elites sense opportunities to convert their spaces to more profitable uses, like a convention center or urban renewal project, there goes the neighborhood and the daily round it sustained. (Logan and Molotch 2007: xii).

Although exacerbated by racial inequality, poor people’s neighborhoods in general are the most vulnerable to disruption and displacement in the wake of growth machines. In addition to the process of letting a neighborhood become dilapidated which drives rents and property values down and provides a space for developers to get in while it’s cheap, this vulnerability is because the daily rounds and even the mere presence of poor people threatens exchange values. Poor people, after all, don’t have the money to pay higher rents, eat at high-end restaurants, or purchase expensive goods for themselves (much less their pets—downtown LA has seen a number of pet boutiques pop up in the last few years). Poor people are unattractive residents in this way, but also by way of social stigma.

Logan and Molotch, however, do not see the growth machine as all powerful. Sure, the capital and political cards are certainly stacked in favor of growth. But the conflicts that arise between those whose interests are exchange value and those who are seeking use value make a place what it is. And, although difficult, those who live and use a place can shape and even change the course of growth. One major difficulty is the predominating doctrine of “value-free development”—the underlying assumption of the growth machine that the free market should decide what is produced and where it is produced. This assumption omits any consideration of the value of the product or venture to the community and the social consequences of its production. Instead it is uncritically accepted that all growth is good and will bring value to the community, increase job opportunities, and expand the tax base and all that that entails (Logan and Molotch 2007: 32-33). To be clear, this is not just a belief held by conservative developers and politicians. More often than not it goes unquestioned by liberals and progressives, labor, and even residents who will bear the brunt of its negative consequences.

As pervasive as the “all growth is good” agenda is, in many cases it simply is not true. Logan and Molotch point out that it’s hard enough for cities to coordinate the most basic services (e.g., schools, health and safety, environmental protections) competently, much less manage the impacts of the growth machine. The authors evaluate the effects of growth on fiscal health, employment, job and income mobility, eliminating social problems, the environment, accommodating natural population increases, and satisfying public tastes—areas (except for the environment) that the growth machine is often toted as benefiting. They conclude that, “Some of these claims, for some times and places, are true. … Nevertheless, for many places and times, growth is at best a mixed blessing and the growth machine’s claims are merely legitimating ideology, not accurate descriptions of reality” (85). For example, Logan and Molotch find that in most cases growth does not create jobs, it merely distributes them; and social problems are not reduced, instead class and racial inequalities are often exacerbated by growth policies.

In terms of resistance to this sort of value-free city building, Logan and Molotch note that “there is precious little evidence” of such resistance (53). Further, they assert that it is especially difficult to organize opposition in the neighborhoods of those most negatively affected by the growth machine—poor people—because the organizations that represent their interests are ineffective and “low-income people are difficult to mobilize; their day-to-day marginality makes it hard for them to contribute time or funds” (113, 136). In the LA Skid Row case, however, the most audible resistance to the growth machine is coming from predominately low-income people of color. This resistance comes in the face of the severe demonization of the Skid Row community. And while you’d be hard pressed to find someone to argue that the conditions of Skid Row are ideal and should be preserved as is, when detached from a historical analysis of what created these conditions, they are used to pave the way for the displacement of the community (through a reduction of affordable housing and services and through the heavy policing and increased criminalization of a community and its daily round). Simply put, “Blaming the victims helps justify destroying their community” (Logan and Molotch 2007: 134).

Those who do challenge the growth machine must be mindful of the different strategies governments use to control them. “When residents’ claims on behalf of use values threaten to undermine growth, government can turn back the challenge, either by invoking police power or by distracting dissidents with payoffs (for example, relocation allowances to displaced tenants)” (Logan and Molotch 2007: 35). Both of these are seen in LA’s Skid Row. In this case though, the policing element did not start because of resistance to growth but as a part of the plan to revitalize the downtown area. LA CAN organizers have been targeted and harassed by the police, however, as their activism around this issue threatens the city’s plans to clean up downtown. And relocation allowances have only come after hard fought legal battles (e.g., settlements to Alexandria Hotel residents). Yet amidst concessions for those who have been displaced and opposition to increased “quality of life” policing in downtown LA, city officials are standing firm in their support for the renewal of downtown and its policing component, the Safer Cities Initiative. The pro-law-and-order and pro-growth policies are complement one another. They are palatable to most, and shoved down the throats of others (attempted to, anyway). To question the growth machine as someone within the political mainstream is to potentially kill one’s political career. (Logan and Molotch offer the careers of Dennis Kucinich, Jerry Brown, and Jan Cartwright as examples.) Earlier in their analysis Logan and Molotch argue, “To question the wisdom of growth for any specific locality is to threaten a benefit transfer and the interests of those who gain from it” (98). Politicians who question the growth machine are disciplined by the denial of funds and the funding of opposition by business interests and bad press.

finishing that thought

*for the beginning of this thought see my previous post*

Similarly, there is ample room for selective enforcement of “quality of life” offenses. While “broken windows” theories of crime tend to assume a color- and class-blind “a crime is a crime is a crime” approach, labeling and critical criminological theories underscore the ability (tendency, even) for policing to be discriminatory and for enforcement to be selective. The order-maintenance approach which broken windows policing is a part of posits two binary categories: the law abider versus the disorderly person (Harcourt 2001). What is means to be disorderly, however, changes across time, space, and situation. Opponents of this approach argue that these categories “mask the repressive nature of broken-windows policing and overshadow significant costs, including increased complaints of police misconduct, racial bias in stops and frisks, and further stereotyping of black criminality” (Harcourt 2001: 7).

Tracing the genealogy, rise and proliferation of zero-tolerance policing, Parenti (1999) argues that this tool of order-maintenance policing is used to criminalize and track already marginalized groups:

‘People say [zero tolerance] doesn’t work because in New York or Baltimore, 80% of the quality of life tickets are never paid and an enormous amount of the misdemeanor court dates are no-shows,’ says zero tolerance apostle Lt. McLhenny of the Baltimore PD. ‘But hey, that doesn’t matter. Unpaid tickets become [arrest] warrants. What counts is we’re got them in the system. We’re building a database.’

Add to that disturbing admission the fact that zero tolerance is often selectively enforced against people of color and the visibly poor and what emerges is a postmodern version of Jim Crow. (89)

Although the bulk of research on the impacts of order-maintenance policing strategies have focused more heavily on how racial and class inequalities shape these strategies while neglecting gendered outcomes, INCITE argues:

Police misconduct and brutality in the context of “order maintenance policing” extends beyond the experiences of young Black or Hispanic men or genderless “communities of color” to those who stand at the intersection of many identities, including young women of color, sex workers, street vendors, outreach workers, and trans and gender non-conforming people of color. It targets women and trans people of color who are the most marginalized, including street-based sex workers, homeless people, people who are labeled as mentally ill, and people who use controlled substances, or women and trans people of color who are profiled as such by the police. (INCITE 2008)

writing the diss

so, i decided to take a few days off and head to CO to work on my dissertation. i am finding that the writing is coming very slowly. this has a thing or two to do with my perfectionist tendencies, but honestly has a lot more to do with the fact that i have a lot of reading to do still! i have written some nonetheless … this is as first draft/puke it all out on the page as it gets for me:

***

This chapter places Los Angeles’ Safer Cities Initiative and the high rates of citations, arrests, and incarceration that have resulted from it within their larger (socio/historical/political/economic) context. Over the last four decades, incarceration rates in the United States have skyrocketed. Gilbert (2008) and Parenti (2008) [1999] link increased incarceration to the US’s neoliberal policies (which are rooted in imperialism). They assert that the social movements of the 1960s combined with the economic downturn of the 1970s led to political strategy aimed to: 1. discredit those involved in movements for social justice, and 2. find a scapegoat for the US’s financial woes. Impinged by the movements of the 1960s, overtly discriminatory language went underground in mainstream political parlance and found its home in colorblind definitions of crime and approaches to criminality, which are in fact far from race/class/gender blind in their consequences. Add to this the politics surrounding urban growth (i.e., more growth at just about any cost, including the displacement of those who stand in the way of or are simply unattractive to development) and it is not surprising that we find ourselves with unprecedented levels of imprisonment.

As of 2008, approximately 2.3 million people were in prison in the US—seven times the rate of incarceration in 1971 (Gilbert 2008). Prior to this explosion, the rates of imprisonment had remained more or less stagnant for seventy years (Gilbert 2008). And it’s not as if a massive crime wave suddenly swept across the US. The high number of people incarcerated reflects a shift in law-enforcement policy which simultaneously expands definitions of criminality and increases penalties for behaviors defined as criminal. So what accounts for this shift? Parenti (2008) argues that this “lockup binge” began to as part of an effort to control the movements for social justice of the 1960s and has continued as a response to the consequences of Reagan-era (and beyond) neoliberal economic restructuring. Amidst the backdrop of social upheaval—the antiwar movement; protests and legislation asserting the rights of people of color, women, gay men and lesbians, prisoners, and other marginalized groups; hundreds of riots/rebellions in cities across the US between 1965 and 1968; and a steep increase in violent and property crime—a “tough on crime” stance both assuaged and created fears that bought support for politicians among the majority of the (white) electorate. Richard Nixon’s 1968 presidential victory underscores this point. Shortly before winning the presidency “Nixon wrote his mentor Dwight Eisenhower, noting both the power of anti-crime fearmongering and its racial content: ‘I have found great audience response to this [law-and-order] theme in all parts of the country, including areas like New Hampshire where there is virtually no race problem and relatively little crime’” (Parenti 2008:7). Law-and-order themes remain prevalent across the mainstream political spectrum (and in spite of decreasing crime rates) today.

Tough-on-crime rhetoric and its corresponding policies became increasingly prevalent as the financial impacts of social change were felt by business. The “average profit rate for businesses fell from a peak of 10% in 1965 to a low of 4.5% in 1974” (Gilbert 2008: 33). A number of factors led to an economic boom in post-WWII US. However, by the early seventies it was clear that the US was in an economic crisis—fueled in part by overaccumulation, expanding international competition, and the high cost of labor in the US. In dealing with this crisis, corporate solutions meant reducing the wages, benefits, and number of jobs available to the working class. Afraid to lose the white working class electorate, politicians sought to explain the worsening conditions for US workers in a way that did not call into question the structure of capitalism and the accumulation of corporate wealth. The poor and people of color (often conflated as one group) became an easy scapegoat:

People of color were cast as parasites, and violent perpetrators pilfering middle-class (read white) America by means of such Great Society programs as AFDC [welfare] and Head Start. And the most potent anti-poor symbol—the one that always surpasses the welfare mother and the mendicant addict—is the young dark criminal, the untamed urban buck, running free, threatening order, property, and (white) personal safety.” (Parenti 2008: 168)

The popularity of law-and-order rhetoric paved the way for a revitalization of order-maintenance strategies of policing—strategies that grant police a high level of discretion in the name of preserving “order.” Wilson and Kelling’s (1992) “broken windows” theory is the most recent incarnation of order-maintenance policing. “Broken windows” theory puts forth a model of community policing that is based on criminalizing once minor infractions and policing “quality of life” issues—including public urination and sleeping in public spaces. White (2008) illustrates how “quality of life” policing has its roots in vagrancy laws, which he traces to 14^th-century England. The focus of vagrancy laws has shifted throughout the centuries—sometimes they are used to force “undesirables” out of a locale, other times they are used intimidate people into staying in servitude (serfdom in 14^th-century England; slavery in 19^th-century US). White (2008) offers post-slavery Black Codes as an example of “a system where the likelihood of being arrested, charged, and punished far outweighed the risks of continued servitude” (72). Black vagrancy was defined broadly:

Runaways, drunkards, pilferers; lewd wanton, or lascivious [exciting lust] persons, in speech or behavior; those who neglect their employment, misspend their earnings, and fail to support their families; and all idle and disorderly persons. (White 2008: 72, quoting Mississippi’s Black Code).

Whites who associated with blacks or who advocated for their equality were also subject to criminalization under these vagrancy laws.

The room for officer discretion in the enforcement of these laws is found in modern-day “quality of life” policing.

***

from here i’m going to write about how although the class and race components of “quality of life” policing are often discussed, the intersection of gender with class an race and the policing of the gender binary is often ignored. i will be drawing on incite’s work on this.