I remember last seminar’s seminar: Science and Tech in NYC, I had to research about the Gowanus Canal’s restoration efforts. Their task is insanely difficult to the point I said aloud that it would be clean when my great-grandchildren become adults. Michelle Alexander’s solution to the incarceration crisis similar to the Gowanus Canal’s mess because it would involve a very long-term effort in order to solve the solution. In fact, if her changes were proposed either by politicians or public interests groups, many of the policies that she is challenging will have lobbyists blocking every attempt. It may be stalled to such an extent to the point where public support has died out and many of the politicians who originally proposed the plan may no longer be in office. In other words, the solution to mass incarcerations of young Black men involves a long winding road.

I believe Alexander’s plan involves taking on too many interests groups for one organization to handle. For instance, she wants to remove financial incentives for police stations, federal grant money from law enforcement, and reeducation for law enforcement personnel just to name a few. According to the Department of Justice, in 2008 there were over 800,000 sworn officers. She also wants to close prisons and prevent the creation of new ones. If one were to avoid the stockholders of private prisons, there are over 400,000 correctional workers according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor and Statistics. The overwhelming number of workers that she plans to affect, coupled with public support, as many Americans do believe that prisoners should be in jail where they rightfully belong, that plans that she propose are not the type that are right for the type of government in the United States.

When Alexander spoke about African American civil rights lawyers and Rosa Parks, it was a shock to me because I never knew about the other two individuals who refused to give up their seat. It all comes down to marketing a cause or belief because voters and public opinion can affect the United States government. If the United States were a dictatorship, Alexander’s proposals would get across easily because red tape wouldn’t be involved. However, because of voters and lobbyists the obstacles that Alexander wants to do would take a very long time. I believe in order to solve the mass incarceration crisis, education through social media and viral videos must educate the public before proposing Alexander’s wants for change. As she said, many white and middle class families are unaware of the affects the War on Drugs is having on us today.

After listing several similarities between mass incarceration and Jim Crow, Michelle Alexander admits that her argument is not foolproof. One limit that caught my eye was where Alexander points out that while the perpetrators and supporters of Jim Crow were undoubtedly racist, she is not calling those in favor of mass incarceration racist, but rather racially indifferent. However, is someone racially indifferent if they are ignoring the plight of other races? Wouldn’t it count as racism by default if one sits and back and lets others discriminate and be discriminated against?

At one point within the chapter, Michelle Alexander notes that a notable difference between Jim Crow and mass incarceration is that the current system of control receives, or rather seems to receive, the support of African Americans. In society, blame is placed on the individual that arrested: because they chose to commit crimes, they are incarcerated. However, Alexander makes the argument that all of us are essentially criminals, and the current system exploits the fact that everyone makes a mistake at some point in their lives. An illusion of culpability is created, it isn’t that the urban poor are more likely to make mistakes, it’s that they are more likely to be targeted by the system of control. While political policies and judicial proceedings may be at fault for playing a part in the system of control, wouldn’t the law enforcement agencies have the largest part in targeting individuals to be prosecuted?

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

Michelle Alexander talk about how affirmative action needs to me taken in a different manner against racial injustice in today’s judicial system. She says that racial justice advocates do not realize that they have helped make the new caste system invisible, spread the myth that anyone can move up in society, and encouraged the “trickle down theory of racial justice”. It was interesting how she talked about Martin Luther and how his dream was to view all people equally regardless of race. Since we have adopted this mentality, when majority of the black men are imprisoned, we can justify that and say that they chose this way of life. However, there are other factors that can lead them into prison and keep them in prison.

My question is how do racial justice advocates implement affirmative action, is it just in the criminal system or do they reach broader areas such as education, politics, etc.

Throughout the course of the book, I have been constantly questioning Alexander’s statements and her statistics. I was always mindful of the fact that she never seemed to address the opposing point of view, but only focused on her point and tried to shape her argument. However, it is worth noting that the points Alexander raised are indeed relevant. I had never thought that mass incarceration could be used as a system of racial control, when in reality it can and has. Just looking at basic statistics, there is a higher ratio of prisoners to free men in the black community than there is in any other. Needless to say, Alexander has fulfilled her goal: she has made me think about the idea of mass incarceration being used as a means of holding one race subservient to the other. I do believe this is something that people need to discuss, as it is evident there is a problem. Therefore, the quicker we find a solution to this highly biased system of mass incarceration, the quicker our society will move in the right track.

Due to human nature, it is impossible to get rid of discrimination.  Everyone knows that they can’t be the best, but they want to make sure that they’re not the worst.  If the world miraculously became truly accepting of other races, there would probably be some other form of discrimination.  After reading The New Jim Crow, I feel like there will always be injustices, but they will be covered up.  Things went from discrimination by race to discrimination towards criminals.  While it makes sense that someone would want to be wary of felons and ex-felons, racial discrimination still exists and is the underlying cause for the disproportionate amount of blacks in prison.  Even when things are meant to be unbiased, something in the system makes it discriminatory towards blacks.  I’m not really sure what to say about this other than that this book gives a shocking and depressing view of everything in America.  I want to know: what does Michelle Alexander/ do you think we should do to solve this problem?

When I first started to read The New Jim Crow, I was very skeptical of the book. The whole topic is very controversial and difficult to discuss. Nobody wants to admit that their legal/justice system has giant cracks within it. We all hope to live in a society where justice executed fairly and of course in a non-discriminatory manner. The author begins her analysis of mass incarceration with an introduction to its structure and policies within the legal system guarantee biased results.

After reading the first few chapters. I kind of realized the major issues at hand with our legal system. Michelle Alexander uses several Supreme Court cases that help to bolster her argument against the fairness of the legal system. The last few chapters of the novel describe the comparisons of mass incarceration to Jim Crow. The most obvious similarity between the two is marginalization of the African American community. The race of Americans is used as stigma just like the stigma of criminality. They function in a very similar manner.

In the last chapter, the author proposes a sort of “solution” to the major racial disparity that exists in our legal system. She suggests that only a social movement can weaken the caste system and legal laws will be futile without a grass roots movement. People have to acknowledge the shortcomings of our system and have to reach a consensus upon change. Her main point is that advocates have to realize and confront the role of race in our society, without this, a new caste will inevitably form upon the dismantling of the “old” one.

My question is: Did anyone have a change of heart regarding our legal system after reading The New Jim Crow?