Prison Abolition: Not Only Does It Matter, It Makes Sense

When I tell people that I am an abolitionist, they tend to get a bit confused. After all, slavery was abolished with the ratification of the 13th Amendment, way back in 1865, right? Then I provide clarification... I believe in the abolition of the prison system.

In 2007, the Bureau of Justice Statistics released figures that confirmed that the United States incarcerated 751 of every 100,000 residents; this is more people per capita than any other of the countries that were studied.

This rate is even higher than in countries with struggling political systems and poor human rights histories, such as Iran (212:100,000), Libya (217:100,000) and China (119:100,000).

This situation is made even more unsettling by the fact that the prison system is filled with people who have either plea-bargained or been convicted within the structures of the U. S. justice system, a system which is to this day steeped in racial and economic biases.

For example, a study conducted by the National Council on Crime and Juvenile Delinquency in 2000 revealed that “minority youth are treated much more harshly than white youth at each stage of the
U. S. criminal justice system....When minority and white youth were charged with the same offenses, black youth who had no prior arrest record were six times more likely to be incarcerated than white youth with similar backgrounds. Hispanic youth were three times more likely to be incarcerated....”

Another study, issued by the Washington D. C. Leadership Conference on Civil Rights revealed that “black youth were 100 times more likely to be arrested for selling drugs than white youth, although drug use rates among black youth appear to be about equal those of white youth,” and noted that “blacks who killed whites were sentenced to death 22 times more frequently than blacks who killed blacks and seven times more frequently than whites who killed blacks.”

These facts reveal a chilling secret: the U. S. justice system continues to perpetuate the long-standing myth that America was built upon, that white people’s lives are worth more than the lives of blacks and other minorities. And this is the so-called “justice” system that determines who will make up the population of U. S. prisons.

The Human Rights Watch points out the consequences of this state of affairs in its report “Incarcerated America.” “The high and disproportionate rate of minority incarceration… exposes and deepens the racial fault lines that weaken the country; contradicts principles of justice and equal protection of the laws; and undermines faith among all races in the fairness and efficacy of the criminal justice system.”

Furthermore, the justice system is undeniably biased towards those who can afford more experienced and effective legal council. Many impoverished and innocent individuals elect to plea-bargain for a reduced sentence due to their fear of what effective council could cost or because of their correctly-placed cynicism regarding their chance for a truly fair and impartial trial.

The prison system thereby becomes a holding-cell for those who have experienced American injustice the most intimately, keeping them disenfranchised and denied of many of the rights of democracy. In such a case, it is ethically questionable to assert that the ends justify the means.

Furthermore, the ends of this situation cannot even be described as effective. Although prisons are ostensibly “correctional facilities,” they fail miserably in providing corrective measures that would allow for the healing and rehabilitation of convicted criminals.

Calvin Malone, a prisoner in Washington state, has written several books about his experiences in state penitentiaries. He tells about trying to find peace amongst his fellow prisoners, many of whom are “notorious for sexually and physically assaulting the vulnerable.”

In fact, the Bureau of Justice Statistics has determined that in the course of one calendar year, more than 70,000 U. S. prisoners were sexually abused by either their fellow inmates or by the prison staff.

In Connecticut, prison staff are allowed to use dogs “to terrify and attack and bite prisoners to force them to leave their cells when they won’t do so voluntarily,” according to Human Rights Watch and an article published in the New Haven Register.

The American Civil Liberties Union has documented numerous cases of girls in the New York juvenile detention centers being sexually abused and harassed by the staff of the prisons.

That is hardly the sort of environment that would enable those amongst us who have fallen into realms of violence and fear to correct themselves. One of the reasons prison recidivism is so high is that many individuals convicted of non-violent offenses are eventually released after having endured months or years of physical, sexual and emotional abuse, angrier and more damaged than when they went in.

Another source of prison recidivism is found amongst those whose original conviction was the result of illegal activities motivated by the need to survive while immersed in poverty– namely, petty theft and prostitution. If they are not provided with the tools of correction such as counseling and education, they will experience even greater difficulty in finding gainful employment as a result of their conviction, and the cycle will continue.

In fact, despite increasing prison populations, crime has not dropped over time. Is it possible that, by subjecting violent individuals to sustained levels of further abuse, we are creating a self-defeating downward spiral towards an ever more fearful and violent society?


(the author, Laura McSpadden, with Angela Davis at the 2008 MBLGTACC, aka "Big Gay Conference")

Angela Davis, one of the pioneers of the prison abolition movement, emphasizes that that the abolition of prison is a long-term goal that will involve a massive amount of social reform along the way, including a basic restructuring of how we as a culture perceive crime.“In order to imagine a world without prisons... a new popular vocabulary will have to replace the current language, which articulates crime and punishment in such a way that we cannot think about a society without crime except as a society in which all the criminals are imprisoned,” Davis said. “Thus, one of the first challenges is to be able to talk about the many ways in which punishment is linked to poverty, racism, sexism, homophobia and other modes of dominance.”

Such a reframe, which acknowledges and takes responsibility for the social causes of crime, would lead to a re-chanelling of the billions of dollars that currently go into the prison system into community-based economic resources, educational services, community forums for dispute resolution, medical and mental health care, rehabilitation systems and community services for adults and children– a conglomeration of services that would deserve the term “correctional facilities” in a way that prisons never will.

Quite frankly, I am not comfortable with the fact that the society to which I belong condones an industry that promotes and spreads suffering.

Whether it be by becoming involved with a prison pen-pal program, writing to your elected representatives, volunteering for a community-based outreach program or rehabilitation center, educating people about the realities of the prison system (which, incidentally, we condone and fund with our tax dollars), or any number of other ways, I encourage all to speak up for those who have had their voices silenced.


(this article appeared in the April 25, 2008 edition of the Oak Leaves)

Moving up in the World of Science: A Look at the Glass Ceiling from a Different Angle

One could hardly imagine a less likely subject of campus controversy than the architectural configuration of the new Science Center.

However, many members of the Manchester College community have alleged that the staircase in the main foyer (the steps of which are made primarily of glass panels) was designed without proper sensitivity to female students and faculty members, and poses a risk that anyone wearing a skirt or a dress could be inadvertently putting themselves on display.

The MC Science Center was completed in the fall of 2005, after more than 13 years of planning and $17million in expenditures. Later that same year, it was awarded the ABC Award of Excellence by the Associated Builders and Contractors of Indiana. Nearly every detail of the building was considered in relation to both practical and aesthetic concerns.

Other than the glass stairs, that is. Although the treads (the horizontal surfaces that are walked on) are opaque, every vertical surface of the staircase is completely transparent. Although it is extraordinarily unlikely that anyone would ever be fully on display, the upward angle of sight available to those walking on the first floor poses a risk that a student on the stairs may be showing more than she intends to or is comfortable with.

The oversight is noticed and felt by many women in the MC community. “Yes, I have thought about those stairs before,” said Reaunna Murphy, an MC alumna from the class of 2006, “and I think it’s obvious that no one thought about all of the implications of making a staircase like that.”

“I agree that the staircase design was gender insensitive,” said Dagny Boebel, a former MC English and Gender Studies professor. “Actually, before the first faculty meeting in the new Science Center, female faculty members were warned NOT to walk up the stairs if they were wearing a skirt. I know that I have sometimes walked up or down wearing a skirt, but only when I have forgotten that this activity puts me on display.”

One consequence of the glass staircase is the impression that it makes upon prospective students. “Upon walking up to the Science Center stairs on my tour, one of the first things I thought was ‘Wow, thank goodness I didn’t wear a skirt!’” said first-year Becka Lee. “I wanted to make an impression, just not one of that sort.”

“No person should be subjected to being put on display in a manner that is outside of their control,” said Travis Rose, a frequent visitor to North Manchester and a current prospective student, “albeit even a minor one.”

Obviously, Lee decided to enroll at MC despite her observations regarding the
glass staircase. However, the comments of Lee and Rose illustrate the probability that other prospective students (not to mention their parents) have been keenly aware of the stairs’ transparency.

Not all members of the MC community agree that the staircase poses a problem. “In general, MC faculty had an above average amount of input into the design of the Science Center, and that includes four women,” said chemistry professor Dr. Terrie Salupo-Bryant. “The glass staircase is in keeping with the glass design throughout the building, and my opinion is that it looks much better that way.”

Defenders of the staircase design pointed out that the area directly under the stairs is barred off. However, this does not solve the problem, for two reasons.

Firstly, the bars are a mediocre deterrent at best. It is easy to get around the bars, as there is a sizable gap between the bars and the wall. Furthermore, I sat and stood in the barred off area on several occasions during the investigative process, which included a few passing periods. Although I am sure that I was seen by faculty members, not once was I confronted or asked to move.

Secondly, because the treads and the landing of the stairs are opaque, the angle that is the most worrisome is not from directly under the stairs, but from the heavily-trafficked areas slightly further from the staircase.

Opinions varied regarding the best way to respond to the design. The simplest way, many contend, is for students and faculty members to avoid wearing skirts and dresses on days when they may need to be in the Science Center.

“I expect that the administration would say that students are here to learn, not to be fashion icons,” said first-year Wendy Lude. “If students feel exposed [by climbing the Science Center’s stairs] while wearing skirts…. then they should simply not wear skirts.”

Others feel that it is unfair to ask students and faculty to be forced to either alter their attire or to find an alternative route to their classrooms, simply so that the foyer of a building can be aesthetically pleasing. It is also an insufficient remedy, for it doesn’t account for those who either have momentarily forgotten or have not yet considered the implications of the glass risers.

Unfortunately, many feel that it is unlikely that the college will actually do anything to change the situation: “I think if the administration had thought about female students and their skirts before the stairs went in, there would have been changes,” Murphy said. “As it is now, I doubt much will be done to help console upset female students.”

The solution most commonly proposed was for the glass risers to be frosted. This would be inexpensive and fairly simple to accomplish, and would preserve the aesthetic unity and openness of the Science Center’s lobby.

(published in Manchester College's weekly newspaper, The Oak Leaves, on November 9, 2007)

Peace without Passivity: Citizenship in Action

It happened for me in my junior year of high school, in American History class, and my life just hasn’t been the same ever since. My teacher, Mr. Jay Rogers, was mostly to blame.

Mr. Rogers taught with his whole being. Our desks were arranged in a semi-circle, and he would move around the room while he talked. Usually he walked at a slow pace, but sometimes he would dash across the room from student to student, the intensity of his arm gesticulations and eye contact revealing shamelessly his passion for the matter at hand.

It happened on the day he gave a lecture on the Civil Rights movement in the first person. The We’s and I’s that he spoke of seemed to do so much in response to the pain that steeped their world. His voice had reached a powerful crescendo when he abruptly stopped. His eyes moved from one student to another slowly, making eye contact with each.

“We had to do it, because we knew that suffering and injustice were important,” he said. “Being a citizen means more than being a legal adult resident of a nation. Being a citizen entails that one acts within the public sphere in order to bring forth a more just society. We needed to act because we cared.”

I had never previously been encouraged so directly to consider what it meant to be a citizen in one’s community. But I understood, right then and there, that I could not let myself be content to stand idly by when confronted with matters of injustice in the world.


It is ten years later, but it was the continuing effects of Mr. Rogers’ thoughts on citizenship that brought me to the Citizens for Global Solutions’ People’s Foreign Policy deliberations in Indianapolis on September 22. Although my political activity has changed during that time—waxing and waning some, and growing away from angry protests and towards deliberations, conversations, letters, and literary activities—it has always seemed of great importance to mobilize my role as a citizen by speaking out against injustice with my voice, pen, and actions.


The speakers at the deliberations were—
· Dr. Robert Geroux , assistant professor at Marian College currently working on a book addressing the duty of doctors and social scientists to protect human rights during wartime,
· Sheila Suess Kennedy, J. D., an associate professor in the School of Public and Environmental Affairs at IUPUI, associate Editor of Policy Sciences, columnist for the Indianapolis Star, and author of several books, including God and Country: America in Red and Blue,
· Keni Washington, founder and managing director of the Earth-Solar Technologies Corporation, a company that works to create more mindful ways of obtaining and distributing energy (such as the Boulevard Plaza project to create a sustainable community in Indianapolis), as well as a jazz musician and composer,
· Dr. John Clark, senior fellow at Sagamore Institute and adjunct professor at IUPUI who teaches courses about terrorism to the FBI’s Midwest Counterterrorism Taskforce,
and
· Dr. Michael Goodhart, professor of Political Science and Women’s Studies at the University of Pittsburgh and past president of the American Political Science section on Human Rights.


Although all of the speakers were though provoking, well informed, and engaging, there were three ideas that were presented that seemed especially significant for the pursuit of a more just and less violent world community.

The first of these ideas was presented by Sheila Suess Kennedy. The focus of her talk was the importance of creating a community that is capable of sustaining genuine communication. “Disputes over foreign policy cannot be understood without reference to a larger phenomenon, sometimes called the ‘culture war,’” she said. “Americans tend to conduct our arguments in shades of black and white. America is irredeemably evil, or America is all good…. Such extremes are, to put it mildly, unhelpful.”

She continued to say that the difficulty in finding an effective U. S. foreign policy is grounded in the intensity of an “ongoing struggle to control the national narrative.” It is therefore important that all concerned citizens—including those in colleges—examine their beliefs regarding the role of the United States in the world—“Foreign policy attitudes are a product of our national self-image,” she said, and concluded that “we have to recognize the different realities Americans occupy, and endeavor to communicate despite them.”

The second idea that seemed particularly pertinent was presented by Keni Washington. He said that citizens of the United States need to recognize that one result of U. S. involvement in the Middle East is the impending destruction of another culture, and that the primary casualties of this and all wars are not the soldiers, but the civilians. As citizens of the United States, we are parties to this atrocity, and thus we should be called into action. He said that Americans who are aware of the injustice and illegality of the U. S. military action in the Middle East are “obligated to press for the indictment of Bush.”

The third idea that I found particularly interesting was made by Dr. Geroux. “America will of course continue to be an economic powerhouse,” he said, “but in terms of foreign policy it will become increasingly marginalized. It has already lost its moral authority because of legal policies that served as the superstructure behind GTMO and Abu Gharib.”

The implication is that it is imperative for the future security of the United States for all U.S. citizens to consider the ethical values that are driving the actions of its government and military.

Whether or not you agree with these conclusions, it is obvious that the issues that confront our generation are staggering in scope and profound in implication. It is not an act of pacifism and nonviolence to remain silent and passive in the face of such a situation; it is an act of complicity.

I would like for all those who read this to consider how they can more fully mobilize themselves as citizens in the world community, and what values lay behind their political beliefs.

To not be passionately arisen to action in the face of such morally and politically dynamic a time as ours seems to me to be halfway to being dead. All of us who hope for a more peaceful world community must find a way to express ourselves publicly and loudly with both our voices and our actions. Speak out.

(published in Manchester College's weekly newspaper, the Oak Leaves, on October 5, 2007)