Study Hall! Defund the police or add more training?
Welcome to our weekly Study Hall. Each week I answer questions and share insights from each of you in our community. This week's responses focused mainly on the role of law enforcement in our society, which to me is one of the most pressing issues of our time. I answered a couple of questions on that and other things below.
If you prefer to read our newsletter only weekly, this is the email you'll receive. You can change your email preferences by updating your profile information here.
As always, your support is greatly appreciated. These contributions are our only source of funding and help us pay writers and develop new resources. You can give one-time on our website, PayPal or Venmo (@nicoleacardoza), or subscribe for $5/mo on our Patreon.
Nicole
TAKE ACTION
1. Reflect on the questions prompted by our community.
2. Ask yourself two questions about one of the topics we discussed this week. Discuss these questions with a friend or colleague.
GET EDUCATED
In review: The newsletters we published this week.
Friday, 9/4/2020 | Tell museums to replace stolen artifacts.
Thursday, 9/3/2020 | Support mental health response services.
Wednesday, 9/2/2020 | Rally for fair appraisals.
Tuesday, 9/1/2020 | Learn the legacy of Japanese American incarceration.
Monday, 8/31/2020 | Condemn colorism.
Sunday, 8/30/2020 | Protect housing rights during COVID-19.
Additional Resources
One of our readers, Mallory, runs Don't Call the Police, a national database of local alternatives to dialing 911 when there's an issue. Learn more here: https://dontcallthepolice.com.
Q+A
Is the person calling 911 really able to discern whether police or mental health professionals are needed? What physical harm or risk may be present that requires a trained policeman to handle an altercation? The caller is probably very afraid of the actions of said person and just want the situation to be deescalated.
The individual calling 911 might not be able to discern enough, but there's ample research that shows that often, 911 responders can't, either. When the individual calls an alternative phone number, those trained responders are often more likely to gauge the situation and decide on the proper intervention – they could easily arrive with law enforcement if they deem it appropriate, OR encourage the caller to dial 911 outright.
When we have an assumption that the "caller is probably very afraid of the actions of said person" and only want to de-escalate, we're allowing that their fear and implicit biases lead the response. That centers the caller, and often not the needs of the individual, which is the point of offering more options.
Q+A
Does it make more sense to train police officers better in de-escalation especially with someone who potentially has mental health issues?
At a minimum, yes. On average, law enforcement spends about 58 hours on firearm training and just 8 hours on de-escalation or crisis intervention (Police Forum). So there's a ton that can change there. But considering the broad examples of harm already, compounded by the racial bias pervasive in law enforcement, there are more urgent calls to defund law enforcement and re-invest in other resources. There's no reason that we need to have law enforcement equally equipped to handle such a broad range of 911 calls. Medical professionals are likely best for health-related calls.
Furthermore, calls for re-investment argue that we can invest in mental health care support that prevents the 911 calls altogether. A punitive based approach to health doesn't change the health equity of any community. It instead focuses on de-escalating problems that preventing them altogether. And we deserve more resources to live healthier, happier lives.
Your question was followed with the statement that defunding might not be the answer, but remember that defunding the police doesn't mean getting rid of them entirely. It means analyzing where we can re-allocate funding to invest elsewhere, all of which should help from us overwhelming them with a wide range of social issues.
Q+A
When it comes to stolen art, why can’t museums buy the pieces from their original countries?
I suppose they could, perhaps as some form of reparations. But from what I understand, the goal now is to change the system entirely by building more points of accountability within the acquisition process. Also, the examples stated make it seem that most countries are more interested in preserving their culture than receiving financial compensation for it.
It begs a broader question: who deserves to have access to the art? Why was it ever okay for us to loot objects for our gain? And remember that the art world financially profits off of these objects as they change hands and remain on display for patrons. If monetary gains fuel this process of colocalization, I don't think we can justify it by sending money back to the countries (unless, of course, the countries themselves deem this the proper response).
Moving forward though, yes, a legal obtainment through a financial transaction seems more equitable than looting.
Reader Courtney shared the following on how the Field Museum is honoring art looted from Indigenous populations (which is a very similar story we're unpacking in a later newsletter):
The Field Museum in Chicago had the best response to Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act in the US that I have seen. They work with the tribes to either return the artifacts or work with the tribes to display the artifacts respectfully. They also educate about how the artifacts were not given by the tribes initially. It was the most honest and open I had ever seen a museum talk about how they received Native American artifacts and have tried to rectify that with respect and honor moving forward. They also took full ownership for a racist exhibit that was in their museum for decades. Now they use it to contextualize racism in science. It was amazing to see and learn, especially since museums are inherently elite, it felt very honest in a good way. They apologized for their history, but promised to do better now.
Bit more about their work here:
https://news.uchicago.edu/story/exhibition-upends-traditional-native-american-representations
Q+A
My family is Italian American and I have some family members who have over the years expressed frustration that “Japanese Internment” was taught to us but not the internment of Italians and Germans during the war. They have also complained that the Japanese American victims received compensation whereas the Italian and German victims did not. I've shared my disapproval with them on this already and would love to hear your thoughts.
Over 120,000 Japanese Americans were incarcerated. In contrast, approx. 10,000 German Americans and "hundreds" of Italian Americans were incarcerated. Both German American and Italian American citizens as a whole were deemed too valuable to the U.S. economic and political system for large-scale incarceration, which says a lot about the perception of Japanese Americans during that time, how our government valued human life, and the racial discrimination our country is still reckoning with.
As a result, there are broad differences in the scale of these decisions. We have to remember the devastating impact this had on the Japanese American community as a whole. The lasting physical and psychological harm, the mass loss of property, the fracture of families, and a long-lasting prejudice against Japanese people, which contributes to this country's racial bias against Asian communities. Comparatively, we do not see the same level of systemic and interpersonal racism against German American and Italian American people today.
I'm not saying that it shouldn't be taught, minimize any harm they experienced, or that the victims don't deserve compensation. It is all wrong, and all groups deserve justice. But these narratives are often a way to minimize the pain of marginalized communities to center the pain of those with more privilege. When people take that stance, they inherently continue to cause harm against Japanese Americans and insinuates that their struggles are less important.
Clarifications
The key takeaways for the Thursday, 9/3/2020 article were incorrect in the text portion of the email. That has been corrected in the archives.
RELATED ISSUES
8/29/2020 | Study Hall! The trauma of police brutality videos, active bystander trainings.
8/15/2020 | Study Hall! Affirmative action, sliding scale pricing, and the right intentions.
8/8/2020 | Study Hall! Emoji blackface, the "family card," and starting conversations.
8/1/2020 | Study Hall! Racist actions, doulas, and intersectional change.
7/25/2020 | Study Hall! How to be a better ally, petitions, and plastics.
7/18/2020 | Study Hall! Ebonics, capitalizations and cultural appropriation.
PLEDGE YOUR SUPPORT
Thank you for all your financial contributions! If you haven't already, consider making a monthly donation to this work. These funds will help me operationalize this work for greatest impact.
Subscribe on Patreon | Give one-time on PayPal | Venmo @nicoleacardoza