Shots Fired – The Tragedy of Policy Shootings

August 15, 2017

Last night I heard an episode of Radio Lab, which they call “Shots Fired,” that is far and away the best presentation I have heard about the persistent tragedy of police shootings.

They were very blunt about the part that racial prejudice plays in leading cops to make all the wrong assumptions with tragic results, as well as the disasters brought about by those cops who use positions in the police force to act out their aggressions, who are, in a word, bullies. It was also realistic in analyzing steps that a few departments have taken to break or attenuate the chains of events that lead to tragedy.

I’ve known, written and spoken about police shootings for decades and am well acquainted with the outlines of what has been going on. This program was a very well-rounded, well-done piece. It had me in tears for a full hour, but it was by no means all “touchy-feelie;” the program explored stories, facts, statistics, a support group, conversation with police administrators and some real understanding and sleuthing by some very dedicated, thorough and persistent reporters.

This is a podcast everyone should see and hear, including the police – the reporting is done in a way which can even reach police administrators who are looking for why these events happen and how they can deal with it.

Radiolab did us a service; now we need to get the story out.

For the podcast, click here.

You will see mention of a very different follow up which was not aired and is for podcast only. It examines the miscommunications which led to the killing of a white woman. The point they try to make in this second podcast is that there are multiple opportunities for miscommunications which can and did have tragic results. In this case the woman, thinking the police were intruders, came out holding a shotgun, the last trigger to the barrage of shots which killed her.

 

 


The Dagger in the Heart of Labor

August 15, 2017

Last week I spoke about labor. Next week is the anniversary of Martin Luther King’s speech at the 1963 March on Washington. I intended to connect the two. After hate intervened in Charlottesville, that’s even more urgent.

In the late 19th and early 20th centuries the Progressive Movement was making great strides on behalf of American workers and farmers. Gradually, the political parties adopted parts of the Progressives platform and many of their proposals were eventually adopted. But in the South, white elites drove a stake through the heart of the Progressive Movement by dividing workers on race. It took the Great Depression of the 1930s to wake America up.

The March on Washington that many of us remember as Martin Luther King’s great triumph was actually called by a coalition of labor leaders. Labor understood that workers had to stand together or they would be trashed together. If you could underpay African-American workers you could underpay everyone. The AFL-CIO, clear about the ways our fates interrelate, was a major supporter of the Civil Rights Movement.

But some politicians used racial prejudice to drive a wedge into support for progress, to prevent government from providing benefits and services for all of us, and then take the “savings” as tax breaks for themselves. Far more whites land on the public safety net but politicians want us to believe it’s just African-Americans. Far fewer African-Americans than whites depend on public schools but politicians want us to think money spent on schools is wasted because “they” get it. In area after area, politicians convinced many of us to starve public services. They want whites to think we would never need what African-Americans would get. They tell us we don’t want to spend anything on “them.” We should be allies, but the politics of race turns us into competitors.

Last time, I described how states and the Supreme Court have been undermining labor’s political role even as it augments management’s. So-called free market “conservatives” don’t want to do anything for the public, for you, your kids and your parents. They tell us that the market solves all problems for the deserving and only the undeserving need help, even while sanctimonious business men poison and defraud us. The real culprits want the freedom to take advantage of us while piling on more tax breaks for themselves. Racial prejudice just makes it easier for them to hide their own misbehavior.

So I want to make three points. First, racial prejudices do the greatest harm when politicians exploit them. I applaud those who condemn the violence and the perpetrators specifically. White supremacists don’t just object to policies – they hate everyone different from them. And no, Black Lives Matter is not a racist organization – objection to racism isn’t racism.

Second, the Supreme Court handed us heavily armed racists massing and marching to intimidate the rest of us. That must stop. Guns have no place in politics or public debate. Worse, white supremacists here admire Hitler, and study his path to power. Hitler’s Brown Shirts terrorized Germany. These folks are terrorists.

Third, Trump has done permanent damage to American politics. His close ties to groups which hate a large portion of America because they think we have the wrong parents is outrageous and highlights the danger of those hate groups. Trump has shown a path to power that every decent American must reject.

I was in front of the Lincoln Memorial when Dr. Martin Luther King shared his glorious dream. I thrilled to his words. But the March on Washington which we remember for Dr. King’s words was called and organized by the labor leaders of America dreaming of unity for all the working men and women of America. It is still a dream. We have to make it come true.

— This commentary was broadcast on WAMC Northeast Report, August 15, 2017.


On the Effects of Brown

August 12, 2017

To make it available on the web, I am posting this commentary originally aired on Dec. 10, 2003 together with a footnote describing the literature:

ON THE EFFECTS OF BROWN
Steve Gottlieb

It is easy to forget how recent are the pathologies that so many of us now routinely associate with black “ghettos”.

My dad taught music in a high school in Brooklyn. Because of the way music was handled, he had almost everyone who came through the school in his classes. When the district boundaries were changed in the early 60s he reacted with relief. The black kids who now came to the school were much easier to handle than the white toughs who now went to other schools.

In my youth black leather jackets were much scarier than black skin.

I am suggesting that the pathologies we associate with poor black ghettos are a product of the past half century.

Before Brown v. Board there was an entirely separate black economy. Riots and lynchings made it a dangerous world for blacks. But you could have all your needs taken care of without ever stepping outside of the black community from hair cuts to a plot in a cemetery. There were black doctors and black hospitals, black stores and black insurance companies. Some black communities were quite successful. Jealous whites burned the black district in Tulsa among others. Slaves had been trained in all the needed skills and one looked to their descendents until poorer whites forceably ejected them after the Civil War. In that black economy, however limited, blacks were masters in their own house.

By the time of Brown, large changes were affecting the black community. Blacks came north for jobs that had been opened by World War II. They moved into cities near those jobs.

Meanwhile, the Federal Highway Administration built the roads that opened up the suburbs. That led to an exodus. We burned a lot of gas in our old 1937 Chevy getting to old friends who’d moved out.

But the Federal Housing Administration red-lined the suburbs. That is, if you were white, you could have your mortgage guaranteed. If you were black, you were not welcome. The suburbs from their origins were lily white not because of white flight from blacks but because a house in the country had been an American dream which whites, but not blacks, were now able to realize.

They couldn’t move to the suburbs, and going all the way back to the time of Brown, what was variously called urban renewal or slum clearance tore down blacks’ homes in the cities. Blacks just called it “Negro clearance.” What happened to all those black businesses? When the government seizes property it has to pay just compensation. But only to the property owners. It assumes that lessees, i.e. most businesses, can get equivalent value elsewhere, that nothing is destroyed. But of course if the business is dependent on the neighborhood trade, it loses what we lawyers call good will and businesses call it loyal customers. As businesses were forced out, they had to start over, on the ground floor.

Minority-owned “mom-and-pop” businesses declined by half from 1960 to 1980.

Storied neighborhoods, live with business and social networks, are simply gone. Torn down to make way for offices and white owned stores. And then deserted even by the whites because there was no neighborhood left to support them – people had gone to the suburbs or been pushed out for “renewal.”

Now add Brown into the mix. all those blacks who had been shopping inside the black community could shop at Woolworth’s and other national businesses. So another economic prop was pulled out from under the black community.

Integration was not an unmixed blessing. Whole industries in the black economy disappeared and, with them, much of the capital that had been amassed. Working in the white economy meant starting the ladder at the bottom, playing by white rules and customs, and insisting on white good faith in hiring, training, educating and promoting blacks.

Ten years after Brown, Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 including provisions relating to equal employment, housing, public accommodations and government programs. Then the battle started in earnest with some defendants fighting decade long legal battles to avoid having to do anything. That was when courts started to employ the same remedies that they had for schools, telling defendants that they had talked the talk long enough and now they were going to have to do the behavior. Those orders are the origins of affirmative action.

I don’t want to make the claim that everything was better before Brown. I have lived through that transition and I know better. But I get very depressed when people claim that the black community has not shown the pluck and ingenuity and savvy and dedication to self-help that other immigrant groups have. On the contrary, they followed precisely that pattern until the fruits were systematically pulled out from under them.
—-
For a brief biliography on resegregation after Brown v. Board, see Stephen E. Gottlieb, Robin L. West, Brian Bix and Timothy D. Lytton, JURISPRUDENCE, CASES AND MATERIALS: AN INTRODUCTION TO THE PHILOSOPHY OF LAW AND ITS APPLICATIONS, 3rd. ed., 940n (LexisNexis, 2015):

Melvin L. Oliver & Thomas M. Shapiro, BLACKWEALTH/WHITEWEALTH: A NEW PERSPECTIVE ON RACIAL INEQUALITY 17-18, 51-52, 150, 174 (1995) (tracing the continued impact of FHA’s racial preference in enhanced white wealth today); Douglas S. Massey & Nancy A. Denton, AMERICAN APARTHEID: SEGREGATION AND THE MAKING OF THE UNDERCLASS 54-55 (1993) (summarizing FHA’s role in imposing residential segregation); Kenneth T. Jackson, CRABGRASS FRONTIER: THE SUBURBANIZATION OF THE UNITED STATES 203-15 (1985) (describing how “FHA exhorted segregation and enshrined it as public policy”); FlorenceWagman Roisman, The Lessons of American Apartheid: The Necessity and Means of Promoting Residential Racial Integration, 81 IOWA L. REV. 479, 486 (1995) (review of Douglas S. Massey & Nancy A. Denton, AMERICAN APARTHEID (“the massive new housing production fueled by the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) and Veterans Administration (VA) financing of suburban areas was a major cause of increased segregation”) (citing Charles Abrams, FORBIDDEN NEIGHBORS: A STUDY OF PREJUDICE IN HOUSING 229-37 (1955)) (“FHA adopted a racial policy that could well have been culled from the Nuremberg Laws”). See also National Comm’n on Urban Problems, BUILDING THE AMERICAN CITY 101 (1969) (concluding that “There was evidence of a tacit agreement among all groups—lending institutions, fire insurance companies, and FHA — to block off certain areas of cities within ‘red lines,’ and not to loan or insure within them” but later studies cited above found considerable and explicit documentation).

ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Steve Gottlieb is Professor at Albany Law School. His most recent book is Morality Imposed: The Rehnquist Court and Liberty in America. This commentary was broadcast December 10, 2003.


The Courts Stand Up for Impunity

June 27, 2017

In one of the last cases to be decided this term of Court, the Supreme Court described the death of Sergio Hernandez as “a tragic cross-border incident.”[1] Indeed. I want to make clear that I care deeply about this case. Several friends and I helped write an amicus brief to the Court about it.[2]

Sergio Hernandez was 15 years old. The Court continued, “According to the complaint,” which the Court must accept as true at this early stage of the proceedings, “Hernandez and his friends were playing a game in which they ran up the embankment on the United States side [of the Mexican border], touched the fence, and then ran back down.” Border Patrol Agent Mesa caught and detained one of Hernandez’ friends but “Hernandez ran across the international boundary into Mexican territory and stood by a pillar that supports a railroad bridge spanning the culvert” between the c ountries. At a distance – the Court wasn’t precise but the culvert was up to 270 feet wide – Agent Mesa shot and killed Sergio Hernandez though the Agent was in no danger.

Notice the issues that the District, Appellate and Supreme Courts have been “struggling” with.

First, the Court had to deal with whether the Constitution itself authorizes a remedy when Congress has not provided one for the violation of constitutional rights. In other words, do our rights exist at the pleasure of Congress? That’s known technically as the Bivens question.

Second, do foreigners have any constitutional rights or may American officials kill them at pleasure? The Court of Appeals had decided that Sergio had no rights under our Constitution.

Third, even if Sergio’s rights were violated, did the Agent have “immunity … from civil liability.” They would have immunity if “their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established … constitutional rights.” So the fourth question is whether killing foreigners across the border violates any clearly established rights?

Along the way the Court commented that some of the issues in the case  are “sensitive and may have consequences that are far reaching.” Sounds like the Court was thinking about foreign relations. The Bible just says “justice, justice shalt thou pursue.”[3]

The Court finished by noting that the case “result[ed] in a heartbreaking loss of life” but thought the Court of Appeals should think about those issues before the Supreme Court reached any final resolution about the issues in the case:

  • whether foreigners have any rights that American officials are bound to respect;
  • whether there is any remedy for murder;
  • whether murder by a government official is a clear violation of a constitutional right?

Abroad, and we use the same term when describing behavior in other countries, people who are protected from any responsibility for the harm they do are described as having impunity. It does not describe freedom. It describes lawlessness, in countries run for crime bosses and rapacious masters.

Think now about shootings of Americans in America by police officers, shootings of Americans with their backs turned, with their hands up, with their house keys in their hands. Are we now a nation with impunity? Does freedom still live here or are too many people here forced to bow, scrape and beg those with the power to kill. If there are people who, in the language of Dred Scott, have “no rights which … [American officials are] bound to respect,”[4] does that mean that they and we are treated like the slave in Dred Scott?

[1] Hernandez v. Mesa, U.S. Sup. Ct. No 15-118, decided June 26, 2017.

[2] Brief for Amici Curiae Legal Historians in Support of Petitioners in Hernandez v. Mesa, U.S. Sup. Ct. No 15-118.

[3] Deut. 16:20.

[4] Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393, 407 ((1856).


Organize to Vote

May 2, 2017

All of those who took part in recent demonstrations – the women’s marches, Black Lives Matter and others aimed at protecting civil liberties, immigrants, the vulnerable and the less advantaged – we are not a minority.

But demonstrations aren’t enough. This country is ruled by ballots. Protests matter when ballots threaten. Nonvoters are routinely discounted. So the next step is to organize to vote.

That’s where demonstrations become a major opportunity. Those who marched can be helped to register or they can help others register and vote.

Marchers need to be asked: whether they are registered to vote; whether they are registered at their current address; whether they are registered to vote in the primaries; whether they have been getting to the polls and voting; and whether they know others, in this or any other state, who need help or encouragement to register and vote. Would you get registration forms for others?

Demonstrations can lead to votes in other ways.

Demonstrate at the Board of Elections to make a difference by showing we want to vote, we’re signing up to vote, we’re ready to vote. Let’s show up where it matters.

Demonstrate outside the 100 foot or other state defined zone where electioneering is prohibited, showing and sharing the fact and the joy that we voted, and you voted, and we performed our civic duty for each other and we did it together and we’re celebrating – those are demonstrations that can make a difference.

What’s crucial about the demonstrations we all took part in doesn’t end with the message. That’s the beginning; that’s what got us fired up and brought us together; that’s what made clear our commitment and our shared sense that acting as a people is empowering. But what matters is converting that commitment – the joy, the fire in our hearts and the messages we marched for – into votes.

Democracy depends on what happens at the voting machines. It’s run by votes and the threat of votes. Even campaign contributions are ultimately about votes. Voices are most powerful when they lead to votes. If we vote, we count. If we stay home in disdain because we’re not satisfied, we’re politically irrelevant. Vote. Count. Take back our democracy – for us, for all of us, for the people. Don’t let the moneychangers and the slick talkers take the forms of democracy for their own benefit. We vote; we count; and we celebrate.

Why look at that now? Because the organization that makes voting happen, the organization that makes the voices of the people matter at the polls and on the ballots, all that organization starts way in advance. Because every state has its deadlines. And back before the deadlines, organization is not instantaneous. Let’s create our political snowball. Let’s terrify the politicians with our strength so that they’ll actually have to behave democratically, according to the rules, principles and methods of democratic government.

Wouldn’t that be refreshing!

— This commentary was broadcast on WAMC Northeast Report, May 2, 2017.


Brotherhood

April 25, 2017

In the height of the Civil Rights Movement we used “brotherhood” to express our quest for more than tolerance, but for closeness as one human family. I’ve never found a gender-neutral term for that feeling, so I continue to use it but in a gender-neutral way – we are all family, cousins, a part of one community. As John Donne famously wrote in 1624, “never send to know for whom the bell tolls; It tolls for thee.”

Given the waves of hate crimes since the election, I’ve been thinking about brotherhood. This country is built on brotherhood, on sloughing off the ethnic, religious and physical prejudices our ancestors all brought from their old countries. By now those prejudices seem irrelevant. Many of us intermarried and were welcomed in new families. A friend told me that Bahai do it intentionally to bring people into the faith, though he was truly smitten and has a loving marriage. Most of us just happen to fall in love and old prejudices seem quaint and silly.

But brotherhood matters. Many of us watched the shredding of Yugoslavia. An exchange student from Belgrade was living with us, beside herself with grief and anger at the destruction of her country. Some had predicted Yugoslavia would explode once Marshal Tito died. But many intermarried, traveled among Yugoslavia’s regions, and young people, like our visitor, thought of themselves as Yugoslavs. But it came apart, viciously, in a blood bath of what was called “ethnic cleansing.”

Americans like to think America is and will always be ingenious, hardworking, neighborly and welcoming; that’s us – we’re the best. But many of us understand that virtues have to be nurtured, not assumed.

Early in the last century, President Teddy Roosevelt predicted “the military tent, where all sleep side-by-side, will rank next to the public school among the great agents of democratization.” The draft brought people together who had lived geographically, religiously, ethnically or racially segregated lives. As men returned from war, they introduced each other to sisters and friends, integrating families and communities. But the political strains of war in Vietnam ended the draft. Ben Downing recently urged national service on this station but we have nothing that compares with the reach and impact of the draft.

Racial segregation was made much worse by federal officials who required banks to redline cities and suburbs against loans to African-Americans no matter how strong their financial status. That left segregated school districts. Many of us still try to make our schools “great agents of democratization.” But racially homogenous student bodies make integration difficult or meaningless, and courts have made it worse.

Sports and entertainment still reflect integration. I once told Jackie Robinson’s widow how much it meant to grow up rooting for her husband. Black faces have been on national television as long as I can remember. My mother screamed with joy when William Warfield came out on stage and announced he would sing Old Man River. And I’ll never forget the sound of Marion Anderson’s voice when I heard her live. I’ve only caught glimpses of Oprah Winfrey but bless her influence. Familiarity, like minority newscasters and public officials, helps to diffuse prejudice and fear.

The Southern Poverty Law Center and the Anti-Defamation League rely on litigation to put racist groups out of business and catalogue hate groups, warning us about their activities and sharing strategies to extend the warm pull of brotherhood.

Other groups try to bring people together, to meet and appreciate each other, like the Interfaith Alliance, individual churches, temples and Muslim Community Centers, who invite people to meetings and festivals. We’ve often broken bread in the Muslim community.

But nothing matches what the draft and schools once did for so many of us. We need better ways to advance peace, justice and brotherhood.

— Most of this commentary was broadcast on WAMC Northeast Report, April 25, 2017.


Polarizing America

January 31, 2017

I’d like to give my spleen a break for a week and talk about some of the dynamics that are polarizing  America, that neither side can solve because the problem is structural. Law has contributed with crucial changes regarding political parties, the media, the draft and residential segregation (which Brown did not prevent). I’d love to hear good suggestions for countering the polarizing effects of those legal changes.[i]

Primaries originally broke up state monopoly parties. We’ve long known that primary elections push candidates apart to appeal to their parties’ most committed voters. After 1968 the primary system became the exclusive method for nominating presidents, pushing the parties further apart.

In broadcasting, three networks controlled radio and television until Congress changed copyright rules, allowing cable television expansion to over a hundred channels, and niche broadcasting to separate audiences. The courts and Federal Communications Commission also killed the Fairness Doctrine, which required broadcasters to present a balanced presentation of controversial issues of public importance. Then Congress made it almost impossible to hold any internet company responsible for even the most outrageous falsehoods published on their systems. Those media law changes made it unnecessary to pay any attention to opposing views. Plus, instead of limiting damages for defamation, as Justice Marshall suggested, the Court gave media much more complete protection.

At the Federal Housing Administration, officials long refused to insure mortgages to African-Americans, regardless of income. That prevented African-Americans from joining the march to the suburbs, drove disinvestment in their existing neighborhoods, and pushed us apart.

The end of the draft has been huge. The military had drafted people without regard to wealth, class, or geography. President Teddy Roosevelt said “the military tent, where all sleep side-by-side, will rank next to the public school among the great agents of democratization.”[2] And indeed the soldiers came home with lifelong buddies from all over America. Arguments about the Vietnam war ended the draft and led to the so-called volunteer army, which doesn’t reach the same cross-section of America. That changed our attitudes toward each other, and how polarized we’ve become.

There were good reasons for the changes to the nominating system, the media, and the draft but the combined price has been to polarize us. Polarization matters. It blocks our ability to listen to each other, even to care about each other. And if we can’t care, the very notion of public welfare, what’s good for all of us, seems like self-pleading.

The market can’t pick up the slack; it fails in many ways. Worse, for market ideologues, democracy, the major counterforce to the market, seems illegitimate. In other words, the stakes are huge – the legacy of our Revolution, our Constitution, and our collective welfare. Somehow, we have to break down polarization, and restore what used to bring us together or find substitutes – for public schools, military service, media that reached across aisles, and integrated housing and communities.

I doubt the cat can be put back in the bag, especially in this polarized environment, but I’d love to hear good suggestions.

— This commentary was broadcast on WAMC Northeast Report, January 31, 2017. For a more extensive treatment, see my Unfit For Democracy: The Roberts Court and the Breakdown of American Politics at 153-67 (NYU Press 2016) or Law and the Polarization of American Politics, 25 Georgia State L. Rev. 339 (2008).

[1] For a more extensive treatment, see my Unfit For Democracy: The Roberts Court and the Breakdown of American Politics at 153-67 (NYU Press 2016) or Law and the Polarization of American Politics, 25 Georgia State L. Rev. 339 (2008).

[2] Quoted in John Whiteclay Chambers, II, Conscripting for Colossus: The Progressive Era and the Origin of the Modern Military Draft in the United States in World War I, in The Military in America from the Colonial Era to the Present 302 (Free Press, Peter Karsten, ed., rev. ed. 1986).


%d bloggers like this: