Learn to build a world where everyone belongs. Take free classes at OBI University.   Start Now

By Stephen Menendian and Mychal Luther

On August 10, 2014, people gathered on Florissant Road in Ferguson, Missouri to protest a police officer’s killing of unarmed black teenager Michael Brown and to demand to the nation that “Black Lives Matter.” Following the lead of these protestors, people of every race, age, and economic background have marched in cities nationwide, many in the presence of heavily-armed law enforcement. This scale of movement and mobilization, over such a sustained period of time, has not been seen since the 1960s when a generation mobilized over civil rights and anti-war sentiment.

The protests emerging out of Ferguson turned the spotlight on years of police violence against people of color, as well as a lack of accountability when it comes to law enforcement. Images of officers armed with military-grade equipment peering through scopes while mounted on top of army vehicles confronting protestors did not go unnoticed, even by nations often criticized by the United States for human rights violations. The Russian Foreign Ministry released a statement stating that the United States should “focus on their large-scale internal problems in the sphere of upholding human rights” instead of foreign affairs.

Many more unarmed people of color have been killed since Michael Brown, illuminating a disturbing mural of state oppression. From Ferguson to Charleston, Cleveland to Baltimore, these instances of police violence can no longer be viewed as isolated cases or defended as the conduct of “bad apples”—but as part of the American fabric.

Indeed, a century ago, civil rights advocates focused much of their attention on anti-lynching campaigns that had similar aims. The NAACP was formed in 1909, and by 1916, had formed a special committee to educate the public on the extent of the violence. In many of the suits brought under federal law, local law enforcement officials were accused of participating in or sanctioning extra-legal violence. The death of Emmitt Till and the violence against civil rights protesters televised to Northern audiences is often cited as helping sway public opinion against segregationists.

In response to the death of Freddie Gray in Baltimore, President Obama reminded the nation that excessive and disproportionate violence against communities of color “has been going on for a long time.” He stated that “This is not new, and we shouldn’t pretend that it’s new.” The President advanced a number of policy recommendations, including implementing new technologies and improving police-community relations.

A number of 2016 presidential contenders have similarly responded to the concerns raised by the movement. For example, in her first policy speech as a 2016 presidential candidate on April 29, Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton called for fundamental criminal justice reform, and for the end of the era of “mass incarceration.”

Yet, the policy challenges are enormous and simple solutions are not easily won. As the largest “prison nation” on the planet, ending the American system of mass incarceration requires more than federal, state, and local consensus, but victory over entrenched interests.

Just as gun control advocates have repeatedly encountered, democratic majorities are insufficient to carry out needed policy reforms. Police and correctional officers unions, corporate owners of private prisons, politicians, and local legislators—whose communities benefit politically and economically from mass incarceration—constitute a powerful “predatory formation,” in the words of author Saskia Sassen, that exploit too many communities of color and resist change.

As revealed by the US Department of Justice’s Ferguson report, the incentives of local municipal governance whose councils and legislative bodies have increasingly sought to fill gaps in state support with fees and fines perpetuate a vicious cycle of dispossession and economic hardship. The Justice Department’s report highlighted the illegal and unethical practices of the entire municipality of Ferguson, but civil rights activists and adovcates have long understood this is not an issue unique to Ferguson. Nationwide, others are now becoming awakened to this reality.

Another issue magnified by police killings which stymies reform efforts are the conflicts of interests that exist between prosecutors and police officers when an officer is being investigated for possible illegal behavior. Officers work in conjunction with prosecutors when investigating and charging someone accused of a crime. In court, strong relationships may be forged after countless adversarial hearings when these two entities collaborate to meet a high burden of proof. Where the actions of these officers become not only egregious but potentially illegal, the bonds created may interfere with the ability of the prosecutor to provide an unbiased investigation. A disinterested special prosecutor or governmental entity could provide the appropriate check and be appointed to investigate and bring forth charges when appropriate. Any hearing should be open to the public so that there is no question regarding what evidence was used to render a decision to possibly prosecute. As a possible model, Governor Brown of California recently signed a law barring grand juries on cases where deadly or excessive force by police has been used (the same law extends the right for the public to record audio or video of police officers).

Beyond formal criminal prosecution, municipalities must invest their resources to promote the existence of citizen police review boards. Residents must have faith in having the option to file complaints when there is belief that their rights have been violated. People will feel more inclined to file a complaint if there are assurances that any extra-legal findings will result in appropriate action. Those who file should feel that there would be no retribution for making the claim. The review boards must have the power to subpoena and reprimand when there is cause. Municipalities need to promote these review boards and provide assurances that retribution will not be taken against those who file formal complaints.

The nation now must examine whether there will be an opportunity to openly examine how the Other is policed before a reflexive backlash attempts to silence the expressions of those who condemn violent confrontations by law enforcement. For instance, NYPD officers turned their backs on their Mayor Bill De Blasio for expressing trepidation regarding how law enforcement might treat his biracial son. Instead of acknowledging a glaring problem, Ed Mullins, head of the NYPD’s Sergeants Benevolent Association stated “if this individual who’s in charge of running this city doesn’t have faith in his own son being protected by the NYPD, he may want to think about moving out of New York City completely.”

Fortunately, James Comey, the Director of the FBI, credited De Blasio’s assertion by acknowledging during a speech at Georgetown University that “many people in our white-majority culture have unconscious racial biases and react differently to a white face than a black face.” The Director further claimed that this bias, coupled with cynicism from policing areas where people of color commit a disproportionate percentage of street crime, lead some officers to make “lazy mental shortcuts.” Unfortunately, these same “lazy mental shortcuts” cause people in power to trivialize an honest exchange of ideas just as it leads to encounters where people who look like De Blasio’s son get physically harassed.

The opportunity to openly discuss changes, to how far too many people of color are viewed with criminal suspicion—without the all-too-common reflexive backlash—must occur. Plans that are already bourgeoning should include concrete reforms to law enforcement agencies and within the halls of justice. The energy that brought people to the streets must also carry them to the voting booth and beyond. At a talk during the Othering & Belonging conference in April, New York Times Op-Ed Columnist Charles Blow described these protests as part of a new civil rights movement of which we are already in the midst.

The Black Lives Matter Movement reflects a shift in focus in our understanding of racism. The movement doesn’t ask who is a racist and who is not. It recognizes that the system is racist. Black Lives Matter reflects a deeper understanding of race in America that no single officer department, municipality, or even government official is entirely responsible, but, rather, makes an assertion that black lives matter. It’s not about assigning responsibility—it’s an assertion of value, call for change, and a demand for justice.

If the aftermath of Ferguson only focuses on law enforcement practices, a critical opportunity will be lost. “Black Lives Matter” means more than ending mass incarceration and reforming police departments and the criminal justice system. It means transforming the patterns of exclusion, segregation, and concentrated poverty that destroy hope and human potential. It means rebuilding our metropolitan regions on equitable principles, and investing in our citizens. The energy and critical dialogue generated by the protests must expand to all aspects of our lives.

The moment that we are in now demands we learn from the pioneers who marched across the Edmond Pettus Bridge and vote for people who will provide a fair and just municipal government. The courage of protesting in front of armored vehicles is fueled by the real belief in the need for change. The moment we are in now calls for the transformation of anger, pain, and reflection into sustainable action and transformative change.