To Protect and Serve Whom?

December 24, 2006 by Maya Harris, The San Francisco Chronicle

When my husband got his driver's license at age 16, in addition to a congratulatory hug from his father, he was given a lecture about the cold realities of Driving While Black: Never take your hands off of the steering wheel when you're pulled over by an officer; always end your answers with "Sir;" ask for permission before reaching for your license; and don't ever talk back -- even if you know you haven't done anything wrong. Now one of a handful of African-American partners at a prestigious law firm, my husband still follows those rules of the road.

So when I read last Sunday's story in The Chronicle about African-American arrest disparities, I could not feign astonishment. Racial bias in the criminal-justice system is not new. Across the country, study after study reveals that if you are black, you are, as compared to your white counterparts:

-- two to three times more likely to be pulled over and searched, yet no more likely to be engaged in any criminal activity;

-- more likely to be sentenced more severely for less serious crimes, especially those involving drugs or property;

-- and, in some jurisdictions, more likely to receive the death penalty.

The disproportionate targeting of African Americans is especially acute when it comes to drug enforcement, creating overwhelmingly black prison populations that reinforce the false perception that African Americans are primarily responsible for the drug problem in this country. More than two decades after the crack epidemic swept through our nation's cities, most people still believe the myth that most crack users are black, while studies document that the majority of drug users -- including crack users -- are white.

And each time new statistics remind us that we are far from the colorblind society we often tell ourselves we are, there rises a familiar chorus that denounces the disparity, calls for more studies and promises redoubled efforts. Experts will be retained, data will be dissected, and tired debates about the extent -- or even the existence -- of a problem will ensue. Yet, those who comprise a fraction of San Francisco's residents will still be overrepresented in the criminal-justice system and subject to disproportionate police force.

The real question is: This time, will we chart a new course? Faced with numbers that San Francisco's sheriff said reflected "institutionalized racism," are we willing to confront the difficult but fundamental challenge of changing the way we police San Francisco's African-American community?

Too often, low-income African-American communities are presented with an impossible "choice": Safe neighborhoods or civil rights. Get-tough, zero-tolerance law enforcement strategies we would find intolerable in affluent communities -- aggressive stop-and-frisks, suspect "sweeps," frequent use of force -- are measures freely deployed in neighborhoods such as Bayview-Hunters Point. In the face of broken promises for community policing and the absence of alternative, preventive responses to crime, such punitive approaches seed community resentment against law enforcement. Moreover, the effectiveness of these intrusive, overbroad measures is questionable, at best.

Take, for example, the city's recent implementation of video surveillance cameras that record residents' activities 24 hours a day. The justification: Crime deterrence, although studies show that surveillance cameras do not significantly reduce crime, especially violent crime in city centers. Still, in the last year, San Francisco has expanded a "pilot" program of two cameras to more than 30 cameras, with immediate plans for 20 more.

Now, the city is trying to pursue curfews and "gang injunctions" (initially, without notifying the vast majority of individuals subject to them) -- measures that control when, where and how people can associate with one another based upon police suspicions about who might belong to a gang.

We know how to do better. "Best practices" abound in how to improve policing and public safety, such as: better street lighting; foot patrols. real community-centered policing, instead of ad-hoc, add-on programs. Several specific proposals for police reform have already been advanced in this city but not fully implemented. In the ACLU's March 2003 report, "Roadmap to Reform" we recommended better data tracking through an improved early warning system, as did the San Francisco controller. In February 2006, The Chronicle reported that Mayor Gavin Newsom said he will "run roughshod" over the San Francisco Police Department to create, by the end of the year, a computerized tracking system capable of identifying problem officers. To our knowledge, the system has yet to be implemented.

The need for a comprehensive public-safety strategy in San Francisco's communities of color is evident. Will these latest revelations move us to actually meet that need? Or will complacency and complexity allow us to assuage our discomfort with rhetoric that masquerades as response?