Philly’s 10,000 Men Must Join a Broader Movement for Social Justice

By David A. Love
Published by The Black Commentator
October 25, 2007

On Sunday, October 21, 2007, Philadelphia Police Commissioner Sylvester Johnson and local community groups teamed up to stem the tide of gun violence and the city’s ballooning murder rate, and to take control of the streets.

Thousands of men gathered at Temple University’s Liacouras Center in an effort called “A Call to Action: 10,000 Men — It’s a New Day.” Volunteers are being asked to patrol the streets for 90 days in some of the city’s most violent neighborhoods. They will receive training in community outreach, including directing residents to educational, job, and drug treatment services. And they will be divided into small platoons headed by an off-duty volunteer officer, and directed by a district captain to patrol an area for three-hour shifts.

As a Philadelphia resident and prisoners’ rights advocate who sees the daily manifestations of a broken city, I hope that those bearing good intentions will succeed in making the city whole. Black men are killing each other and filling up the prisons, and something must be done — yesterday.

I believe, at the outset, the 10,000 men movement has good intentions, but I have some misgivings. My first concern is that the police department, in virtually deputizing a multitude of people, is creating and controlling a volunteer force with the potential to engage in acts of vigilantism, a recipe for disaster. My second and more important concern is that such a call to action gives the impression that with catchy slogans, symbolism and a magic wand — in the absence of a larger justice movement that seeks to replace a host of policies that are crippling us — society can ignore our systemic problems and still make everything better, now that thousands of men are marching through the streets.

And the systemic problems are numerous, chronic and interrelated. Philadelphia is but a microcosm of America, and the dire straits in which we find ourselves are being played out in urban centers throughout the nation.

The 10,000 men are not the first attempt at community control in this country. Following the urban rebellions of the 1960s, the government embraced and funded some community empowerment initiatives, then pulled the plug and vilified their efforts. In other cases, the government actively destroyed community empowerment movements it could not control. We must remember the attempts by the first 10,000 Black men and women — the Black Panthers — to empower the people through their ten-point plan. With their free clinics and breakfast programs for children, the Panthers in Philadelphia and other cities were branded as a dangerous terrorist organization by the federal government and local police. Their offices were raided, their leaders imprisoned, assassinated or otherwise neutralized. Had the Black Panthers succeeded, or more specifically, had they been allowed to succeed, one can only imagine what the Black community would have looked like today.

And in Philadelphia, with its especially troubling history of police-community relations, there have been years of conditioning in which police view communities of color as a criminal element, and these communities rightly perceive the police as an occupying force. There is the memory of police commissioner-turned mayor Frank Rizzo’s reign of terror against African Americans in the 1960s and 1970s. There is the memory of the 1985 bombing of the radical Black collective MOVE, in which the police, under Philadelphia’s first Black mayor, Wilson Goode, firebombed a block of Osage Avenue in West Philadelphia. Five children and six adults died, and 61 homes were destroyed. Given such events, it is no wonder that many refuse to cooperate with the police, opting for a “no snitching” policy.

Bad public policy, with even worse intentions, has played an insidious role in poor communities and communities of color that even an army of thousands of volunteers cannot eradicate. “Tough on crime” and the “war on drugs” are code names for the criminalization of Black men. The school-to-prison pipeline does its job well, as some of the more under-performing schools in Philadelphia program children for failure, and prepare them for a life of few opportunities outside of Pennsylvania’s state correctional system. Prisons scattered throughout the Commonwealth are warehoused with Black men from Philadelphia, providing increased revenue and higher census figures for rural White areas. Meanwhile, the inner city is depleted of resources, economic activity and hope, and emptied of thousands of Black men who have been murdered or shipped off to prison camps and gulags across the state, no longer available to build their communities and support their families. Perhaps it is not surprising that Philadelphia is a city that is 25 percent in poverty, the highest of the major U.S. metropolitan areas.

10,000 men in the streets cannot begin to undo the harm caused by years of regressive conservative economic policies, initiated by Reagan’s trickle-down on America, and perfected by Bush Jr.’s war-profiteering kleptocracy. As the wealthy received tax breaks, corporate subsidies and other rewards, the poor and working poor witnessed the erosion of the social safety net, and critical social welfare programs. After all, the reverse-Robin Hood crowd viewed poverty as a moral deficiency, and the poor had to learn to pull themselves up by their bootstraps and stop depending on the government.

Moreover, wealth inequality, exacerbated by depopulation and the erosion of the city’s economic base, has crippled Philadelphia and other places. Suburbanites, who left the city for a better life, see their future as separate and distinct from the fate of the neighborhoods they left behind. Philly’s population has decreased substantially over the years as a result of White flight, a ten percent loss between 1980 and 2000. However, the trend has reversed and the city is now repopulating. For example, many New Yorkers, priced out and crowded out, are flocking to the easier life, the new frontier 90 miles to the South. Gentrification is transforming neglected urban blight into chic, trendy neighborhoods for young hipsters and affluent professionals. But what will become of the poor residents who remain, yet will be crowded out of the communities they can no longer afford?

And without jobs, a living wage and life choices, those in poverty will remain frustrated and desperate. Oddly, though, although Philly’s neglected neighborhoods are deprived of many things, the last thing they need — guns — never are in short supply. Philadelphia is held hostage by the NRA, and while the 10,000 men hopefully will help stop the violence, they have no control over the grip that the gun lobby has on Harrisburg. Unable to enact its own gun control ordinances, unlike New York City, Philadelphia is subject to the interests of suburban and rural lawmakers who are rewarded handsomely by the arms manufacturers. John C. Sigler, the president of the NRA, recently told an audience at Widener University Law School in Wilmington, Delaware that Philadelphia does not need new antigun laws, and that gun control only serves to hamstring law-abiding citizens. Sigler’s statement came a day after a march led by wheelchair-bound gunshot victims in Philadelphia, those who obviously are not a part of Sigler’s constituency.

So, given the historical and political context in which we find ourselves, any attempt to solve Philadelphia’s crime problem must include a greater call for social, economic and racial justice, the eradication of redlining and predatory lending in communities of color, a living wage and viable schools, universal healthcare and childcare, affordable housing, the decriminalization of drugs, an end to the incarceration boom, and the reunification of families separated by prison bars. Anything less is more of the same old story.

Copyright © 2007 by David A. Love

A Human Rights Treaty for the Protection of Minorities: A Draft Proposal

(Author's note: The following is a draft document that I developed with a group of colleagues while studying international human rights law at the University of Oxford in 2002. It reflects a proposed international standard for minority group rights on the basis of race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, culture, language, etc., and also demonstrates the inadequacies of current documents such as the United States Constitution in protecting the rights of vulnerable, oppressed and disenfranchised groups.)

Preamble

Recalling the rights that are set forth in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Recognizing the inherent dignity of all people[s], and in particular, persons who are the object of discrimination based upon characteristics which [persons] cannot or should not change by virtue of their cultural, linguistic, religious, gender identification or [other status]

Considering the developments and protections of international human rights instruments have furthered these important objectives but require articulation and bolstering by the international community in greater specificity and commitment,

Calling attention to the distinctive contributions of all [people and in particular marginalized groups] to the cultural diversity and social and ecological harmony of humankind and to international cooperation and understanding,

Recognizing that legal institutions and treaty bodies can have a cultural bias in procedural issues, should not be a barrier to any of the rights guaranteed,

Insisting that use of the term minorities in this instrument [is meant in the most inclusive way] and shall not prejudice the use of this instrument for its application by indigenous [peoples], women, refugees [gays and lesbians],

Further noting that the protections set forth herein and invoked by [people] shall not be deemed to detract or disparage the rights of other minority groups present within the territorial boundaries of States Parties,

Adopts the following treaty the twenty-sixth day of July 2002, with the understanding that state parties shall take affirmative steps to promote equality of minority groups consistent with the groups’ conception of self [and their goals and desires],

Section I

Article 1

1. The Parties undertake to guarantee to persons belonging to national minorities the right of equality before the law and of equal protection of the law. In this respect, any discrimination based on belonging to a national minority shall be prohibited.
2. The Parties will adopt, where necessary adequate measures in order to [ensure or] promote, in all areas of economic, social, political and cultural life, [full] equality between members of a minority group and the majority society. In this respect, they shall take account of the specific conditions of persons belonging to minority groups.
3. No one shall be denied opportunities on the basis of his or her minority status.

Article 2

1. Minority groups shall have a right to determine the representation of their group in educational materials. The state shall make efforts to insure a proportional representation in teaching faculty so that all members of society may benefit from a diverse learning environment.
2. Members of minority groups shall have the right to establish separate educational institutions, in conformity with state standards. Such institutions shall have access to the same proportionate level of resources as institutions of the majority culture. This provision shall be interpreted as consistent with the state’s nondiscrimination policies [such as the separation of church and state].
3. Minority groups shall have the right to meaningful participation in the establishment of educational standards and curricula.
4. The state has an obligation to promote education in the general population which facilitates understanding and awareness of minority groups, and validation of their histories and cultures.
5. Members of minority groups have the right to learn and use their mother tongue.
6. States Parties are mindful that discrimination against minorities can and is often compounded by gender discrimination and shall undertake to promote equal opportunity in access to the same education at all levels for all persons, and further, that the state shall provide effective redress for claims of discrimination.

Article 3

1. States shall take measures where required to ensure that persons belonging to minorities may exercise fully and effectively all their human freedoms and fundamental rights without any discrimination and in full equality before the law.
2. [defining discrimination, discrimination can be against minorities, compounded by gender]

Article 4

1. Members belonging to minority groups shall have the right to work and enjoy the benefits of prosperity in common with other members of society. Further, State Parties shall undertake to ensure that minority members are compensated on par with members of the society as a whole in the same occupation and at comparable levels of experience.
2. States Parties shall undertake to remove barriers which prevent minority members who choose to participate [in the economic mainstream] from realizing their potential on par with other members of society.
3. States shall make available institutional and capital development support for culturally specific occupations.

Article 5

1. Every person within the territory of a state party has the right to security and liberty of person and shall not be deprived of such without due process of law. All persons shall be equal before the tribunals and have the right to be informed of the specific nature of the charge against them in a language they can understand.
2. Every person has the right to a fair hearing before a competent and independent tribunal established by law and free of prejudice. Cultural differences can be taken into account as a mitigating factor in determining the proper punishment.
3. Disparity in sentencing and incarceration between minority and majority groups can be considered as evidence of de facto discrimination and measures shall be taken to correct such disparate treatment.
4. Efforts by the state parties shall be made to increase the representation of minority members in the legal and judicial professions in proportion with their numbers in the society as a whole.

Article 6

1. Negative media images have a profound effect on the negative stereotyping of minority groups. Therefore, members of minority groups have a right to full participation in the mass media of the nation in which they reside. Minority groups have a right to play an active role in creating positive images of their group [including inter alia the ownership of media organizations and corporations]. The state shall aid members of minority groups in their efforts to establish their presence in broadcast, print, electronic and other forms of media.

Article 7

1. States shall respect the right to privacy and family of minorities, and shall act in ways that affirm cultural sensitivity. Further, minority groups have a right to self-identification in society, without the interference of arbitrary and discriminatory state policies.

Article 8

1. States and their actors are prohibited from encouraging or engaging in hate speech [hate speech which incites violence against minority groups, or encourages acts or policies that further their oppression] and other discriminatory acts directed towards minority groups. Further, states must take all actions to create an environment which is not conducive to the perpetration of crimes against minorities. The tribunals of the individual states shall prosecute with vigor all hate crimes committed against members of minority groups.

Article 9

1. Members of minority groups shall enjoy full political rights, including the right to vote in national and local elections. States shall not engage in any practices that hinder the ability of minority groups to exercise their voting rights. Further, states shall make efforts to ensure [proportional representation] minority group representation in legislative assemblies.

Article 10

1. States and corporations operating within the boundaries of such states shall be prohibited from engaging in discriminatory economic practices against members of minority groups. Such practices include inter alia predatory lending practices, the charging of exorbitantly high interest rates, policies which bar access to capital, and the redlining of minority communities.

Section II

Article 11

1. There will be a non-political Minorities Protection Committee consisting of experts of high moral character and recognized competence in the field of human rights protections, serving in their personal capacities.
2. The committee shall be composed of 18 members, of which no less than half shall be women. Further, no less than half of the members shall be representatives of self-identified minority groups.
3. Members shall be elected by secret ballot after nomination by the states’ parties to the treaty.
4. Attention shall be paid to ensuring a fair geographical representation.

Article 12

1. The committee shall receive communications from individuals, states, Non Governmental Organizations with United Nations consultative status or special recognition with the Committee, and other bodies of the United Nations.
2. Each state party, in cooperation with Non Governmental Organizations, or national human rights commissions of the state where they exist, shall issue a joint report on a periodic basis. The report shall detail the state’s compliance with all relevant articles of this treaty.

Article 13

1. The committee has the power to appoint special mediators to work toward the resolution of disputes between states parties and aggrieved minority groups.
2. Where mediation fails, the committee shall have adjudicative powers and the ability to release advisory opinions on general questions referred to it.
3. The committee has the ability to work in cooperation with other United Nations entities on issues of common concern.

Photos Bolster Claims of Mumia's Innocence and Unfair Trial

By David A. Love
Published by The Black Commentator
October 18, 2007 - Cover Story

A group of journalists is determined to seek a fair retrial of death row prisoner, noted journalist and former Black Panther Mumia Abu-Jamal, and they point to evidence they say provides further proof of his innocence: photos from the crime scene that the jury never had the chance to see.

The group, Journalists for Mumia, was founded by Hans Bennett, a Philadelphia journalist, and Dr. Michael Schiffmann, German linguist at the University of Heidelberg, to challenge what they characterize as "the long history of media bias against Abu-Jamal's case for a new trial."

Abu-Jamal, formerly known as Wesley Cook, was arrested and convicted of the 1981 murder of Philadelphia police officer Daniel Faulkner. He has been on Pennsylvania's death row since then, although a federal judge affirmed his conviction but vacated his death sentence in 2001. A three-judge, federal appeals court panel is reconsidering the case for his retrial, and heard oral arguments on May 17, 2007.

Faulkner was killed on the corner of Locust and 13th Streets in Philadelphia, on the morning of December 9, 1981. Abu-Jamal and his brother, Billy Cook, were found lying on the sidewalk when police arrived at the scene to find Faulkner dead. In addition, Abu-Jamal, who also had been shot, was beaten by police when they came to the scene. And he was arraigned at his hospital bed while recovering from life-threatening injuries.

This case has been one of the most contentious, most widely observed and most thoroughly critiqued cases of our times, as it has put a spotlight on the contagion of police brutality, racism and corruption in the criminal justice system, and the capricious application of the death penalty. Amnesty International has called for a new trial for Abu-Jamal. "It's shocking that the US justice system has repeatedly failed to address the appalling violation of Mumia Abu-Jamal's fundamental fair trial rights," said Amnesty International UK Director, Kate Allen.

Through prodigious research, Schiffmann has located a number of photos taken by press photographer Pedro Polakoff. Polakoff, who arrived on the scene 12 minutes after Faulkner's killing, produced at least 26 photos before the arrival of the Philadelphia Police Department's Mobile Crime Unit. Some of the photos are highlighted in Schiffmann's new book, Race Against Death. Mumia Abu-Jamal: A Black Revolutionary in White America. The book — an expansion of Schiffmann's doctoral dissertation — was recently released in Germany, and has yet to be published in the United States.

Polakoff told Schiffmann that the crime scene was poorly managed and unsecured, "the most messed up crime scene I have ever seen." Polakoff attempted to hand his photos to the D.A.'s office on two occasions — before the trial in 1982 and in 1995 during Mumia's post-conviction relief hearing — but to no avail. Apparently, they weren't interested in what he had to show them. (And Schiffmann and Bennett say that Polakoff, who until very recently assumed Mumia was guilty, and that Mumia was the passenger in his brother's car, had no interest in contacting Mumia's lawyers regarding the photos.)

Perhaps this was because his photos presented some damning truths. In his book, Schiffmann makes a number of important arguments:

• The police manipulated the evidence that was provided to the trial court. For example, Polakoff's photo shows Faulkner's cap resting on the roof of Billy Cook's Volkswagen. Yet, in a police photo taken 10 minutes later, the cap is on the sidewalk in front of 1234 Locust.

• Police officer, James Forbes, testified at trial that he had secured Faulkner's and Abu-Jamal's weapons, and did not touch the metal parts in order to preserve the fingerprints. Yet, Polakoff's photos show that Forbes had touched the metal parts of the weapons, destroying valuable evidence in the process.

• Polakoff told Schiffmann that officers at the crime scene said they believed the shooter was sitting in the passenger seat of Billy Cook's Volkswagen, supporting the argument that a third person was at the crime scene.

• One of the prosecution's key witnesses, a cab driver names Robert Chobert, claimed he was sitting in his cab behind Faulkner's police car during the shooting. Yet, there is no taxicab in Polakoff's crime scene photos.

• The prosecution asserted that Mumia killed Faulkner by standing over the already wounded officer and unloading several shots from a .38 revolver. However, the Polakoff photos show a clean trickle of blood on the pavement, not the splatter of blood or cement damage that one would expect from the firing of such a weapon.

Journalists for Mumia are providing a valuable public service in the honored tradition of the First Amendment. Linn Washington, Jr., veteran journalist who worked for the Philadelphia Tribune at the time of Mumia's arrest, was on the case at a time when most of the Philadelphia press corps were asleep on the issues of race and criminal justice. Washington recently reflected on the role of the press in the U.S. Constitution: "One of the reasons why we have this First Amendment is [the framers] said, they knew that power corrupts absolutely. So they had this check and balance, you know, where the executive had a check on the legislative, and the legislative and a check on the courts, and the courts had a check on both of them. But who is going to check the checkers? Well that was supposed to be the press. So, the press had a watchdog role to look at what government is doing, and more specifically, look at what the government is doing wrong to who? We the people."

And the Philadelphia of 1981, on the heels of the brutal reign of police-chief-turned-mayor Frank Rizzo, was a time of rampant official corruption and misconduct, racism, and police brutality. Washington noted that during the year of Mumia's arrest, five men were framed by the Philadelphia police for murder and exonerated years later. Two of the innocent men spent as much as 20 years in prison before their release, and one man spent 1,375 days on death row before he became a free man. This legacy of police corruption haunts the city to this day, at a time when better police-community relations are needed to stem a tide of gun homicides.

There is much in Mumia's case that is troubling, and points to a dysfunctional system in dire need of repair.

• The prosecutor had a history of excluding African American jurors, and struck 10 of 14 Black potential jurors, but only 5 of 25 whites.

• In a sworn statement, a court stenographer said she overheard the trial judge, Albert Sabo, saying he would help the prosecution "fry the nigger."

• For twelve years, prosecutors withheld evidence that the driver's license of a third man was found in Faulkner's pocket at the crime scene.

• Defense witnesses who testified that someone other than Abu-Jamal killed Faulkner were intimidated.

• Five of the seven members of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, which denied his appeal, received campaign contributions from the Fraternal Order of Police, the primary group that has advocated for the execution of Mumia, who they regard as an unrepentant cop killer.

All of this is about Mumia, yet far more than just Mumia, for Mumia's case marks a part of the continuum that represents the tortured, tragically consistent narrative of people of color in America's justice system. Decades before Abu-Jamal, there were the Scottsboro boys. In 1931, nine black teenagers in Scottsboro, Alabama — ranging in age from thirteen to nineteen — were accused of raping two white women. Tried without adequate representation, they were sentenced to death by all-white juries, despite a lack of evidence. And one of the women later recanted.

In more recent years, there were the Central Park Five, the five Black and Latino men convicted of raping and beating a female jogger in Central Park, N.Y., in 1989, and later found to be railroaded. Donald Trump had spent $85,000 on full-page newspaper ads calling for the death penalty for the five youths, who were characterized as a wolf pack. And of course, today we have the Jena Six, arrested and prosecuted in a Louisiana town for fighting against nooses dangling under their high school's "White tree," while the White students who planted the nooses and committed other acts of violence were given a pass.

We will never know how many innocent people in this country — those who could not afford to buy justice — were sent to their deaths or forced to languish in prison for the rest of their lives, all on a lack of evidence or doctored and cooked-up evidence, served up by police officers who wanted to make a name for themselves, and prosecutors who aspired to higher office on a tough-on-crime stance.

Society cannot help those who were victimized by kangaroo justice, but no longer live among us and are now but a fleeting memory. But we can still help Mumia Abu-Jamal, and in doing so we begin to repair this system of "justice" and save ourselves in the process.

Copyright © 2007 by David A. Love

High Court Should Ban Lethal Injections

By David A. Love
Published by Progressive Media Project and McClatchy-Tribune News Service

The Supreme Court should outlaw lethal injection as cruel and unusual punishment.

This term, the nation's highest court has agreed to hear a case challenging lethal execution on the grounds that it violates the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Introduced in 1978, lethal injection was supposed to be a better alternative to hanging, the gas chamber, firing squad and electrocution—a clean, clinical, painless, more humane and therefore more acceptable form of capital punishment. It is used in 37 of the 38 death penalty states. Only Nebraska still prefers the electric chair.

Almost all states use the same three-drug cocktail of sodium thiopental (sodium pentothal), which induces unconsciousness, pancuronium bromide (or Pavulon), which causes muscle paralysis, and potassium chloride, which stops the heart.

But there are problems with lethal injection.

Death penalty critics say that sodium thiopental can wear off before the patient's heart stops, causing extreme physical and mental anguish. Moreover, the prisoner is in a chemical straitjacket and cannot tell anyone that he or she is in pain.

In its recent report, "Execution by Lethal Injection: A Quarter Century of State Poisoning,” Amnesty International notes that Texas, which executes more people than any other state, has banned the use of these chemicals on cats and dogs because of the pain they can cause.

The botched execution of Angel Diaz has added urgency to this case. The state of Florida put Diaz to death on December 13, 2006. But it took 37 minutes and two administrations of the drugs to get the job done. The first needle missed his vein, and Diaz was seen moving, blinking and mouthing words for 24 minutes.

Two Kentucky death row inmates—Ralph Baze, 52, and Thomas Clyde Bowling Jr., 54—sued their state in 2004 and have brought this challenge to the Supreme Court. It marks the first time the Supreme Court has considered the constitutionality of a method of execution since 1879, when the court upheld Utah's firing squad.

But this case is not just about Baze or Bowling. And it’s not just about the lives of the 3,281 men and 59 women who are on death row.

It’s also about what kind of country we are.

The justices should realize what more and more Americans are beginning to understand: There is no way to make lethal injection, or any other form of execution for that matter, humane.

Capital punishment is cruel and unusual punishment, whether a person is beheaded, strapped to a chair and electrocuted or laced to a gurney and injected with a deadly cocktail. It is a barbaric practice that most of the developed world, including the European Union, has outlawed, and it is a violation of international human rights law.

If these lethal injections are not suitable for pets, surely the court ought to find they are unsuitable for human beings as well.

Copyright © 2007 by David A. Love

Is the Road to Prison Reform Paved with Good Intentions?

By David A. Love
Published by The Black Commentator
October 11, 2007

The nationwide problem of prison overcrowding provides a perfect opportunity for society to examine real prison reform. Exorbitant prison spending threatens to cripple state budgets, as lawmakers in many parts of the country allocate more funding to lock up their citizens than to educate them and provide them with essential services.

With over 2.2 million people incarcerated in its federal, state and local institutions, no other country imprisons as many of its people per capita - or in absolute numbers for that matter - as the United States. As a result of failed policies driven by the politics of fear and racial scapegoating - the war on drugs, tough-on-crime measures, and draconian sentencing guidelines — America's prisons are an emerging national crisis. After spending years forsaking the concept of rehabilitation in our criminal justice system, in favor of retribution for its own sake, we know that the system is overburdened and overwhelmed. And many have concluded that the old ways are not serving us well.

In California, the three-strikes rule and a powerful corrections officers' union have created a burgeoning prison population. Over 172,000 prisoners are housed in 33 facilities designed for only 100,000, costing the taxpayers more than $8 billion annually. Inmates do not receive adequate healthcare, and recidivism is high. A three-federal judge panel will determine if the California prison system requires a population cap, releasing thousands of inmates and alleviating the deplorable overcrowding.

Meanwhile, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation recently announced a new policy that would free thousands of nonviolent parolees who are unlikely to re-offend. The program would remove certain parolees from supervision after six months rather than the usual three years. And ex-convicts who are no longer under the supervision of the system cannot be sent back to prison for violation of parole.

And similarly, Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell is proposing alternative sentencing for nonviolent drug offenders, including early release, drug treatment, and recidivism prevention programs. This, as the Keystone State faces a crisis of prison overcrowding, with a legacy of tough sentencing and life without parole that has broken up families and ravaged poor communities, yet has done nothing to address the troubling homicide rate in cities such as Philadelphia.

As the least regarded among society, prisoners are not a high priority among lawmakers and those who promulgate public policy. And many believe that prisoners deserve any punishment they receive above and beyond their prison sentence. But in order to halt the revolving door of recidivism that plagues our prison system, society must pay attention to the civil rights and quality of life of prisoners and strive to rehabilitate them.

The purging of religious and spiritual materials from prison libraries on the grounds that blocking inmates' access to such books will stem the spread of terrorism - as reported in the New York Times on September 10, 2007 - is misguided and unconstitutional. That the federal government wants to fund medical experimentation on prisoners — following a report last year by the Institute of Medicine, part of the National Academy of Sciences, which recommended a return to such practices — is unethical, unconscionable and barbaric.

Although they are deprived of their liberty, prisoners are entitled to the same basic constitutional rights we all share. However, the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1996 (PLRA), enacted by Congress ostensibly to put an end to frivolous prison litigation, has crippled inmates' ability to seek redress and protect their rights in the federal courts. The PLRA requires:

• an exhaustion of administrative remedies
• restricts the courts' authority to provide relief when prisons violate the law
• requires that prisoners suffer a physical injury in order to recover for mental or emotional injuries
• imposes a severe cap on attorneys' fees

The PLRA is a roadblock for valid claims of prisoner abuse, and must be repealed.

And when prisoners are released, they are subjected to punishment above and beyond their original sentence. Ex-cons lose their right to vote in some states, cannot obtain licenses for certain professions, and are denied financial aid for college because they have a felony conviction. It is difficult for these individuals - predominantly of color and mostly poor, unskilled and uneducated - to rebuild their lives and support their families when society stands in their way.

America is at a crossroads on the issue of prison reform. Locking our problems away has not made society whole. The failed "law and order" stance must give way to a smarter and more thoughtful approach that examines and tackles the interrelated problems of poverty, low education, joblessness and crime. We cannot continue on a path that does not address the root causes of America's ills, fails to reduce crime, and bankrupts us - not only economically, but spiritually and socially - in the process.

Copyright © 2007 by David A. Love

Keeping An Eye on the Promise Keepers

FROM THE ARCHIVES
Published by Emerge Magazine
by David A. Love
April, 1997

(Author's note: In light of this election season, I thought it was useful to resurrect the following commentary from ten years ago.)

Last September, I attended the Promise Keepers conference at Shea Stadium. One of the few African-Americans in the crowd of nearly 50,000 men, I was out of my element. A progressive person--I belong to a group that fights the burning of Black churches, police brutality and the regressive policies of an extremist U.S. Congress-- I did not attend the event expecting a message that would appeal to my interests. Rather, I went to study the Promise Keepers' concept of "racial reconciliation."

The Promise Keepers hold their all-male conferences in stadiums across the country, drawing crowds of up to 725,000. Most of the mainstream media have painted the group as an innocuous, apolitical organization that seeks to embrace the spiritual lives of Christian men. Televised images of Promise Keepers events-- men singing together, crying and embracing each other-- reinforce that image.

However, an Oct. 7th article in The Nation magazine provides a different perspective. It says the Promise Keepers are an attempt to give the radical Right a friendly face, and further its fundamentalist and bigoted political agenda in the process. With a reported annual budget in excess of $115 million, the support of rich conservative businessmen and the blessing of individuals such as Pat Robertson of the Christian Broadcasting Network and Gary Bauer of the Family Research Council, the Promise Keepers hope to build on the political success of the Moral Majority and the Christian Coalition.

One of the primary themes of this movement is a call for racial reconciliation. Surely, the word "reconciliation" was chosen very carefully. As a concept, reconciliation is quite different from equality or justice. If two individuals reconcile, that does not mean they both get what they want. A slave and a slave master may reconcile, but that will not necessarily alter their fundamental relationship.

The "Christian" Right does not seek racial justice in the United States. Throughout history, it has stood in the way of freedom for all Americans. Conservative White Christians justified the enslavement of Africans and the genocide of Native Americans, participated in Jim Crow segregation, burned crosses and blocked schoolhouse doors. Today, they endorse policies that threaten the already tenuous position of the poor and reward those who possess more than enough wealth. Their stance against women's rights and reproductive rights is repressive, and their attitude toward immigrants is racist and xenophobic.

Moreover, in the spirit of their segregationist predecessors, today's Christian conservatives are uncompromising in their opposition to affirmative action and other programs that seek redress for racial discrimination. In a cynical attempt to detract attention from their own complicity in this racially charged climate, elements of the radical Right (including the Christian Coalition and the Promise Keepers) have pledged funds to rebuild Black churches. Forgive me if I am suspicious of those who have show nothing but intolerance and hatred toward me, yet suddenly claim to seek my friendship.

Not unlike last year's Republican convention, the Promise Keepers' event at Shea Stadium was abundant in racial symbolism but short in substance. Many of the female volunteers were Black or Latino. Furthermore, although th crowd was overwhelmingly White, many of the featured speakers were men of color. For example, Rev. Joseph Garlington, pastor of a nondenominational church in Pittsburgh, ws a member of the reelection committee for conservative Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.). E.V. Hill, and African-American pastor from Los Angeles who is featured at many Promise Keepers conferences, gave President Nixon's inaugural prayer in 1973 and was the chairman of Clergy for Reagan. By putting Black faces in high places, the Promise Keepers create the illusion of an organization that is sympathetic to people of a darker hue.

So, what do the Promise Keepers really want? If they can attract significant numbers from Black, Latino and mainstream White congregations and instructs them to vote for Right-wing political candidates with so-called "Christian" values, they will have succeeded in destroying the traditional New Deal coalition.

Academic McCarthyism Threatens Democracy

By David A. Love
Published by The Black Commentator
October 4, 2007

Columbia University President Lee Bollinger recently took a lot of heat when he allowed Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to make a speech at the Ivy League institution. Bollinger, a First Amendment legal scholar, understands the importance of free speech in a democratic system. And these days, free speech is under attack on college campuses throughout the nation.

Professor Norman Finkelstein, son of Holocaust survivors and the most prominent critic of Israeli policy in American academia, was denied tenure by DePaul University, even though the political science department and the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences recommended tenure. Harvard law school professor Alan Dershowitz lobbied against tenure for Finkelstein, an act described by MIT professor Noam Chomsky as a "jihad" designed "simply to try to vilify and defame him, in the hope that maybe what he's writing will disappear." Finkelstein told the Democracy Now! program: "I met the standards of tenure DePaul required, but it wasn't enough to overcome the political opposition to my speaking out on the Israel-Palestine conflict." The late Raul Hilberg, dean of Holocaust historians and a Finkelstein supporter, had said: "I have a sinking feeling about the damage this will do to academic freedom."

Professor Ward Churchill was fired by the University of Colorado at Boulder, ostensibly because of research misconduct, a pretext, many believe, for his unpopular views. Churchill has written extensively on the genocide of Native Americans and the federal government's COINTELPRO program. The trouble started when Churchill characterized the 9-11 attacks as a response to years of U.S. abuses, and called the victims of 9-11 "little Eichmanns" who formed a "technocratic corps at the very heart of America's global financial empire."

Then there is Erwin Chemerinsky, constitutional scholar extraordinaire who has argued for judicial review for detainees held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and represented Valerie Plame, the CIA agent outed by the Bush administration. He was chosen to become dean of the new University of California-Irvine law school. Then, the chancellor of Irvine rescinded the contract — allegedly due to pressure from conservative groups — then reinstated Chemerinsky.

Meanwhile, Andrew Meyer, a student at the University of Florida, was tasered by police during a speech by Sen. John Kerry, while he asked questions that were critical of Bush. And there are calls by the College Republicans for the resignation of David McSwane, the editor-in-chief of the Rocky Mountain Collegian, Colorado State University's student newspaper, who wrote an editorial in which he said "Taser this. F*** Bush."

Conservative pressure groups, including David Horowitz and his Students for Academic Freedom (in classic Orwellian fashion, they purport to stand for academic freedom, the opposite of that which they really advocate), are trying to muzzle free speech in academia. In their warped worldview, there is a leftwing conspiracy to control the college campuses and enforce liberal, politically-correct thinking. They are kindred spirits with those political hacks in the Bush administration who cried liberal bias in public broadcasting, and attempted to recreate PBS in the image of Fox News.

And professors are strong-armed and vilified in the process. Horowitz has compiled a list of the "101 Most Dangerous Academics in America," which includes Finkelstein; Chomsky; Kathleen Cleaver of Emory University; Howard Zinn of Boston University; Manning Marable, Eric Foner and Victor Navasky of Columbia; Angela Davis of the University of California, Santa Cruz; David Cole of Georgetown; Derrick Bell of NYU; Amiri Baraka of Rutgers; Robert McChesney of the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign; Ron (Maulena) Karenga of the California State University, Long Beach, bell hooks and Leonard Jeffries of the City University of New York, Juan Cole of the University of Michigan, and others.

Horowitz claims most college professors are left-leaning, which is hardly the point. I am inclined to believe that free thinking, open-mindedness and flexibility are more compatible with the purpose of the university. Ideological conservatism stands for black or white, right or wrong, friend or enemy, with no shades of gray. One is not supposed to challenge conventional wisdom, authority, the laws, the status quo or longstanding institutions. It is worth noting that in a recent study, psychologist David Amodio and others found that conservatives tend to be more rigid and closed-minded, less tolerant of ambiguity and less open to new experiences.

And as far as the Ahmadinejad speech at Columbia is concerned, certainly, those chickenhawk Americans who are beating the drums of war with Iran are dying to be provoked by the words and actions of the Iranian bogeyman. And denying the existence of the Holocaust, and presiding over a government that disregards women's and gay rights, and executes juveniles is reprehensible at the very least. Is he a petty dictator, as Bollinger suggests? Perhaps. But he is also a politician who is playing to his base. And there are many would-be petty dictators in this country who, in playing to their base, support the most outrageous and unconscionable policies, such as the criminalization of women's rights, including abortion, even in the case of rape and incest, guns for everyone, the teaching of creationism mythology in the schools, homophobia, criminalization of Latino workers, and the elimination of civil rights and civil liberties.

Our own President Bush is responsible for the deaths of 1 million Iraqis and thousands of U.S. citizens, all from a war based on lies, for the purpose of protecting his and his friends' oil interests. His administration, detested by millions, acts with a total disregard for the law, on a daily basis. Yet, he is allowed to give speeches everyday — albeit with the aid of teleprompters displaying phonetically-spelled words — unimpeded, and without impeachment, for that matter.

Free speech dictates a higher standard than merely giving a pass to those whose ideas are acceptable, those with whom we agree, whoever "we" are. It is better to have all of the ideas out there in the marketplace, save those which amount to yelling fire in a crowded room or inciting violence. If the Constitution is not durable or inclusive enough to protect dissident views and unpopular statements, maybe it is not worth keeping. Perhaps it is not worth the paper on which it is written, and it is time for us to find another plan.

So, enough of this academic McCarthyism. Words are powerful, as they can liberate bodies and minds, spur revolutions, and change history. Indeed, the pen is mightier than the sword. But free speech is supposed to be feared by a dictatorship such as Burma or China, not a democracy. Which one are we?

Copyright © 2007 by David A. Love