I thought Michelle Alexander had a very interesting writing style, where she presented information in each, which she then combined with information from previous chapters, effectively reframing the issues chapter by chapter.  I found this to be a bit repetitive at times, but I understand her purpose for doing so, as it sort of mirrored the compilation of injustices which add up to an overarching racist system.  However, I appreciated that Alexander ended the book with lists of the similarities and differences to the Jim Crow era. As many have said, she comes off a bit biased at times, and for me this helped demonstrate that she does understand that her arguments will be met with some controversy and has thought through the strengths and weaknesses of her analogy.  Most notably, I was relieved that she mentioned that whites are also affected by the drug war, which was something that hadn’t quite fit with the Jim Crow metaphor until she expanded upon it.

I was also glad that she addressed what some had criticized in class, how she was protesting mass incarceration and the drug war so intensely without proposing policy suggestions.  However, she states towards the end that The New Jim Crow is not intended  to reach such bounds, but rather to start the conversation. I think this was a wise choice overall, because she only did what she felt qualified to do and what she knew could be handled in the scope of one book.  That being said, what does everything think are possible ways to change the flawed system of mass incarceration?  Also, how do we prevent discrimination from simply taking a new form in the next chapter of United States judicial policy?

-Jacqui Larsen