Introduction, Rebirth of Caste, The Lockdown

Hello readers!

This blog will be about The New Jim Crow, a political commentary on the effect of mass incarceration on the African American population. The New Jim Crow is written by Michelle Alexander, a civil rights lawyer and writer, and it explores her view of mass incarceration as a racial caste system.

Alexander explicitly states her purpose in the introduction, saying that the book is intended to “stimulate a much-needed conversation about the role of the criminal justice system in creating and perpetuating racial hierarchy in the United States” (16). Like many people, including Alexander, I previously believed that racial issues in the justice system were caused only by subconscious bias against black people, rather than covert methods of intentional racism. However, Alexander presents the idea that politicians specifically waged the War on Drugs (during a period where drug use was on the decline) to imprison African Americans and gain political power and votes from the white population. To prove this point, Alexander quotes a political insider during the Reagan administration who said that Reagan appealed to “the emotional distress of those who fear or resent the Negro, and who expect Reagan somehow to keep him ‘in his place’ or at least echo their own anger and frustration” (48).

The Jim Crow laws elevated the status of poor white Americans, so when they were repealed during the Civil Rights Movement, lower class whites lost power and blacks became their equals. While Democratic elites supported progress for racial equality, they were out of touch with the “common man” who bore the brunt of civil rights reform. Republican candidates, such as Richard Nixon, wanted to gain the votes of these unhappy, lower class whites, but overt racism was now unacceptable. Instead, he appealed to his audience by waging the War on Drugs while using racially coded language to sway voters without providing evidence to his critics.

Alexander continues to elaborate on the political scheme for mass incarceration as she describes the emergence of crack cocaine. Crack cocaine emerged largely in black neighborhoods while powder cocaine remained more common in white society. However, the media focused largely on crack cocaine as opposed to its “white” counterpart, with the Washington Post alone running 1,565 stories (52). Media portrayed a negative image of black neighborhoods, and law enforcement punished more African Americans.

She uses evidence of “unconstitutional” search and seizure to further her point. Alexander describes the evolution of the fourth amendment in a series of Supreme Court cases. With these cases, qualifications for the amendment are removed, most notably probable cause, allowing police officers to search citizens on a hunch. This essentially allows police officers to judge others based on appearance and, in this case, the color of their skin. Because of the social indoctrination of black inferiority, even if police officers are unconsciously being racist, they are more likely to search a black man for seeming suspicious without any other evidence. This is similar to the What Would You Do? video we watched in class today where the black man was the only one confronted as he pretended to steal a bike. The white man and woman did not seem suspicious because of their race (if the experiment was done correctly without any other variables) whereas the black man who was committing the exact same crime was the only one challenged. Similarly, police are known for (consciously or not) targeting people of color, and the alterations to the fourth amendment eliminate the protection many black people would get from law enforcement. Alexander uses the example of a black man who is sleeping innocently on a bus when he is forcefully awakened by the police. The police ask to see his ticket and ID and later ask to search his luggage in search of drugs. In this case, the man is doing nothing to seem suspicious, just taking a nap on his way someplace. However, because of his race, the police had a hunch that he was carrying drugs and searched him without probable cause. In my opinion (and Alexander’s) this is unconstitutional by the wording of the fourth amendment. She uses this case to emphasize racial bias in the justice system.

Being charged with a felony places harsh limitations on nearly all aspects of life, and these increased searches on black people lead to more arrests and convictions. Therefore, the number of black felons increased along with the elimination of probable cause. The label of felon limits your opportunities and resources because the felon is “barred from public housing by law, discriminated against by private landlords, ineligible for food stamps, forced to ‘check the box’ indicating a felony conviction on employment applications for nearly every job, and denied licenses for a wide range of professions” (94). In short, felons are locked out of mainstream society and never truly acclimate to life outside of prison. Because black people are typically targeted by law enforcement, they are more greatly affected by this. This is why Alexander titles her book The New Jim Crow because many black people are incarcerated, and once they are, they are permanently segregated from normal society.

Do I agree with Alexander? Yes and no. I agree with her that this system started with racism, and I agree that developments in the justice system are unconstitutional and unfair. However, Alexander frames the issue as a government scheme, like their intent is to further social and racial injustice. While I agree that there is racism in the government, I think (or maybe I’d like to think) that it is subconscious as opposed to a vicious attempt to oppress blacks. Maybe I’m naive in believing that most people (including politicians) have a moral compass, but I think that Alexander’s view of the War on Drugs as a government plot to put black people at the bottom of the socioeconomic pyramid is too extreme and could be toned down a bit. I agree that there are racial undertones; however, I think there needs to be a greater balance between open racism and subconscious bias.

Then again, with current politics, who knows?