Representations of Racism, Policing, or Immigration in Film PEER EDITING DRAFT

4 THE NEW JIM CROW

and unconscious bias. As a lav1yer who had litigated numerous class-action

employment-discrimination cases, I understood well the many ways in

which racial stereotyping can permeate subjective decision-making pro­

cesses at all levels of an organization, with devastating consequences . I was

familiar with the challenges associated with reforming institutions in which

racial stratification is thought to be normal-the natural consequence of

differences in education, culture·, motivation, and, some still believe, innate

ability. While at the ACLU, I shifted my focus from employment discrimina­

tion to criminal justice reform and dedicated myself to the task of working

with others to identify and eliminate racial bias whenever and wherever it

reared its ugly head. By the time l left the ACLU, l had come to suspect that I was wrong

about the criminal justice system. It was not just another institution in­

fected with racial bias but rather a different beast entirely. The activists who

posted the sign on the telephone pole were not crazy; nor were the smatter­

ing of lawyers and advocates around the country who were beginning to

connect the dots between our current system of mass incarceration and ear­

lier forms of social control. Quite belatedly, I came to see that mass incar­

ceration in the United States had, in fact , emerged as a stunningly

comprehensive and well-disguised system of racialized social control that

functions in a manner strikingly similar to Jim Crow.

In my experience, people who have been incarcerated rarely have diffi-

culty identify ing the parallels between these systems of social control. Once

they are released, they are often denied the right to vote, excluded from

juries , and relegated to a racially segregated and subordinated existence.

Through a web of laws , regulations, and informal rules, all of which are

powerfully reinforced by social stigma, they are confined to the margins of

mainstream society and denied access to the mainstream economy. They

are legally denied the ability to obtain employ ment, housing, and public

benefits-much as African Americans were once forced into a segregated,

second-class citizenship in the ]im Crow era.

Those of us who have viewed that world from a comfortable distance-yet

sympathize with the plight of the so-called underclass-tend to interpret the

experience of those caught up in the criminal justice system primarily

through the lens of popularized social science, attributing the staggering in­

crease in incarceration rates in communities of color to the predictable,

though unfortunate, consequences of poverty, racial segregation, unequal

INTRODUCTION 5

educational opportunities, and the presumed realiti . mcluding the mistaken be]· f l .

es of the drug market, ie t 1at most druo de l bl

Occasionally, in the co . f o a ers are ack or brown.

u1se o my work, someone w Id k suggesting that perhaps the V' D .

ou ma e a remark •var on rugs is a a . . .

blacks back in their place Tl . f r c1st conspiracy to put

. 11s type o remark was i . bl by nervous laughter intend d

nvana y accompanied , e to convey the im •

h

idea had crossed their mind . . press10n t at although the

s, tt was not an idea a re . , bl take seriously.

asona e person would

Most people assume the V,/ar on Dru s w . . crisis caused by crack coc . . .

g as launched m response to the

ame m mner-c1ty ne· hb h d that the racial disparities

. d. . . ig or oo s. This view holds

m mg conv1Ct10ns and t rapid explosion of the p .· I .

sen ences, as well as the

nson popu atwn reflect n th .

government's zealous-but b . ff ' o mg more than the

. . e111gn-e orts to address ram d. . 111 poor, mmority neighborhoods Th · . h "l

pant rng cnme

. . ts view, w I e understa d bl .

sensational media coverage f I . h n a e, given the

o crac < 111 t e 1980s and 1990 . . While it is true that the p bl. . . s, is simply wrong.

u 1c1ty surround1110 era k . 1 d matic increase in funding f th d.

o c coca111e e to a dra- or e rng war (as well as t .

that greatly exacerbated rac· Id. . . . . o sentenc111g policies

ta tspant1es 111 111carcer t" ) truth to the notion that th W D

a 1011 rates ' there is no

e ar on rugs was laun h d . cocaine. President Ronald R fc. . II

c e 111 response to crack eagan o 11cia y an d h

in 1982, before crack beca . . nounce t e current drug war

me an issue 111 the m d. . . . . neighborhoods. A few years aft h d.

e ia or a cns1s 111 poor black er t e rng war was d l d

spread rapidly in the poor black . hb h ec are ' crack began to

ne1g or oods of Los A l d emerged in cities across th 2 Th

nge es an later

e count1y e Reaoa d . . to publicize the emeroence f" l

. . .

o< n a m1111stration hired staff o o crac < cocame 111 I 98S f

fort to build public and l . l . as part o a strategic ef-

eg1s at1ve support for the war 3 Th . was an extraordinary success Al .

. e media campaign · most over111ght th d.

with images of black "crack wh " " ' e me ia was saturated

images that seemed to c c. or

h es, crack dealers," and "crack babies"-

onnrm t e worst neg t" , · I impoverished inner-city residents Th d. b

a l\ e racia stereotypes about

demon drug" helped to t l h . e me ia onanza surrounding the "new

ca apu t t e \,Var on Dr f .. policy to an actual war.

ugs rom an amb1t1ous federal

The timing of the crack crisis he! ed t f . era! speculation in po bl I

p . o uel conspiracy theories and gen-

f or ac < commumt1es that th Vv

o a genocidal plan b th

e ar on Drugs was part

States. From th y e government to destroy black people in the United

e outset, stones circulated h drugs were bein b. h .

on t e street that crack and other g roug t 111to black neighborhoods by the CIA E II . ventua y,