Reducing Harm through Anti-Segregation Policing and Community Racism Response Funds with Dr. Monica Bell

This episode features a critical conversation with Dr. Monica Bell. Dr. Bell is an Associate Professor of Law as well as an Associate Professor of Sociology at Yale University. In our conversation, we speak about some of Dr. Bell's proposals for reducing harm until we abolish racist systems, including anti-segregation policing and community racism response funds.  Our discussion highlights the importance of combating complacency in reformist efforts as well as the importance of holding the community accountable for individual acts of routine racism.

If you have any questions or comments that you would like addressed in the YouTube series Office Hours with Abbie and Juwan please email ccofficehours@gmail.com

And, as always, please review, subscribe, and share with everyone you know :)

To stay up to date on all of the latest announcements, be sure to subscribe to the weekly newsletter!

Become a supporter of the show with a monthly subscription (amount of your choice) and get a shoutout in upcoming episodes!

Transcript

Abbie Henson: [00:00:02] Welcome to critical conversations. My name is Abbie Henson, and I'll be the one conversing with our guests. And I also serve as an assistant professor in the school of criminology and criminal justice at Arizona state university. After the killing of George Floyd, my social media blew up.

I kept seeing posts and reposts as stories, all about criminal and social justice issues. However, much of what I was seeing were just flat words that lacked voice and depth and nuance. And so I wanted to create a space where those words could come alive. I wanted to engage in dialogues with people who had actually been impacted by the criminal justice system, whether through their own experience research or both, I felt this was the moment to think critically to examine the complexities of our system in place today, and to figure out how to move forward in a way that allows for equity and true justice.

So I started hosting live webinars, both in an attempt to have the audience be active participants either by raising their hand and joining the conversation, or by contributing a question to the chat box and to also build a sense of community and togetherness in a time when we were so isolated through quarantine, but because of zoom fatigue, and with people starting to slowly move their lives beyond the home has places open up.

I wanted to figure out a way to keep these conversations going away from the screen. So I started this podcast in order to reach a broader audience and keep these issues in your ear as you move throughout your day. And while it can be really overwhelming to think about how to change a massive system, that seems so ingrained in the fabric of our society by participating in these conversations.

And yes, You just listening to this podcast is participating. That is where we see. True, true change beginning. Hey everyone. Thank you so much for joining me in this critical conversation with Dr. Monica bell. Dr. Bell is an associate professor of law, as well as an associate professor of sociology at Yale university.

In this episode, we speak about some of the novel concepts Dr. Bell has come up with that could serve to reduce harm until we abolished racist systems. This includes concepts like anti segregation, policing, and community racism, response funds. I hope that you enjoy this episode feeling engaged and please as always continue the conversation.

Once the episode is up. Thank you for talking to us today. So one of the things that you discuss is how police have roles beyond simply crime fighting. Even though we know this it's very rarely discussed in the literature in public media. And so one of the proposals you put forth is that police serve to both construct and perpetuate segregation, racial segregation, specifically, including class, but specifically racial.

And so I was hoping that you could talk about how you see this playing out. I know that you have several ways in which you see it operationalized, but if you could just go into some of the mechanisms that police use to segregate, that would be, that'd be awesome. 

Monica Bell: [00:03:45] Yeah, absolutely. So on a very fundamental level, police are municipal workers who insure bars, muni, municipal workers, who kind of dictate where people are allowed to be.

So we see this in the context of, you know, who's viewed as suspicious in certain areas or not. We see this with respect to the tight, you know, how police operate. So, you know, in certain neighborhoods, there is a very large police presence and those large police presences, you know, in a lot of surveillance, mean that certain communities are going to be attract, you know, by the police a lot more and specifically racialized, racially, marginalized communities, 

Abbie Henson: [00:04:32] something that you mentioned in one of your articles that I think is really important for our listeners to hear and understand is that when we see crime rates.

In certain communities, that's often more reflection of police activity rather than crime itself. So when you're in an area where there's hyper surveillance, where you're being constantly tracked, of course, you're going to find more crime in those areas, but it's likely that if you went into other areas, even more affluent white areas and you tracked those people just as much, it's likely those areas would have higher crime rates, because it's just that they're easier to see when you're there watching for it, looking for it.

Yeah. 

Monica Bell: [00:05:20] I mean, that's certainly true. So, I mean, there's, there's work on this. I'm thinking about the jock and write a book on code of the suburb. It's basically this story where, you know, suburban police are for, for in the specific location. This isn't always the case, but in some cases, suburban police are essentially absent from policing, even drug dealing and things like this, that a lot of people kind of psychologically assign to marginalize black, urban neighborhoods or black or Latinex neighborhoods.

And so, so what you said is, right, I mean, I don't want to say that differentiation of crime across neighborhood is imaginary is not, that is actually more nuanced than that. So, so first of all, yes, there is more tracking of crime and more observance of people who are marginalized in space. That's the problem of hyper surveillance?

Well, there's also even a deeper issue, which is, uh, certain types of. Behavior that could be interpreted as criminal could also be interpreted as non from us. So, you know, especially in a world where we have quality of life crimes, you know, he didn't see someone hanging out on the street and, and sound some sort of criminal label to that and then arrest someone or put them in a program or just, you know, introduce more surveillance to their lives.

Whereas that very same type of behavior might be viewed as a centric in other communities and under other police departments. So it was actually that there are really deep institutional choices that are 

Abbie Henson: [00:06:55] happening here. Totally. So it's not just about tracking crime. It's also about defining crime in these different spaces.

Yeah, I think, uh, another way that you speak about it is. Not only the tracking and defining and criminalizing, but also then through hyper surveillance, you are arresting these individuals, which then gives them a criminal record, which then we know limits opportunities to break into the mainstream to find housing.

It's it perpetuates poverty, as you say, in these areas, because you're then limiting, you're putting a cap on. The social mobility that these individuals can have by placing a label on them. So it's almost like the label serves as a cap. The criminal label is almost assigned at birth to many of these people because of their race, gender, and where they're from.

But it's almost as if the B sheet of paper with the record legitimizes that social construct 

Monica Bell: [00:08:02] absolutely true. I mean, we have, you know, a long history of criminalizing black people and certain brown communities, uh, you know, throughout American history. And this is also actually a global, a global phenomenon as well.

But, you know, just focusing, uh, here in the U S there are multiple levels of kind of the label of criminality. If you think about the rise of mass incarceration is becomes really salient in. Shifting what people's labor practices, for example, you know, there are all kinds of ways in which the label of criminal becomes a proxy for other sorts of racial marginalization, but specifically to what you were saying about how the label serves as a cap on.

Mobility. It is very specifically racial. I think that's the, that's the point here, I guess not just like a class label, it's, it's doing a certain type of racial hierarchal, racial hierarchy reinforcement work, and that has major effects on housing in particular, because having a criminal record constraints where you can live essentially, and it also constraints, you know, who's allowed to have you as someone who lives with them.

So it introduces a marginal marginality, not just to that individual, but also to their family and friends. And so it really becomes a much more of a collective social enterprise to attach the label, the racialized label criminals. 

Abbie Henson: [00:09:32] Right. And I think that's really important because we have all these studies, you know, Devah, pager's study in particular and then a lot of the studies that.

Replicated after that find that white men with criminal records are more likely to get jobs and callbacks from employers than black men without criminal records. And actually a more recent study found that it was looking at black fathers specifically, and they found that in states that had, uh, that had banned the box that were no longer able to ask about felony charges that actually black men fair to worse in those states, because there was then an assumption that they had criminal records.

So the criminal label, despite the fact that half of the people in prison are white, despite the fact that there are white people with criminal records, it is very much a racialized term. The notion of threat does not, is not constructed around whiteness. It has always been from the inception of America.

Well, the United States that we have today, it's been constructed on blackness. And that's what we see as, as you know, segregation, I think in thinking about how police not only reinforce this notion, but also physically as you describe how, cause I thought it was so interesting, your point about constructing precincts, because this is something that we, as you know, like we never talk about how there are these arbitrary boundaries placed around neighborhoods that are all almost always racially bound.

And so when we're thinking about the hyper surveillance that's occurring in order to perpetuate poverty and perpetuate segregation, it's. Also done through these boundary lines that we construct. Yeah, 

Monica Bell: [00:11:31] that's absolutely right. Yeah. So, so I really started thinking about redistricting when I was reading the work of Donica Borden, who was working on talk about quite a lot in my article and who I'm collaborating with now on an article that tries to take the arguments about police districts further and talking more about their reinforcement of race and to think about what a democratic or something, or maybe non-racist approach to police districting would look like and what its implications would be.

And I don't know is this, this is. Really important because there's a way in which the assumptions we have about policing are just natural. It's like, well, of course it's like, oh, well of course, you know, they're going to be policing and precincts that are racially divided because that's just the way it is.

And it's like, well, actually you don't have to just have institutions that are reinforced the way things are. It's like, if we're trying to try to think really seriously about transformation, we need to look at a granular level that all of the micro components of our institutions that reinforce racial hierarchy.

So it's like really important and good to talk about the origins of policing and slave patrols. Like all of that, that work is so important, but then we also have to become really granular. How is the, what is the daily work? Of our current policing systems. And how specifically do they reinforce racial hierarchy and oppression?

And so the police districts point is one of those micro components that is actually quite salient in terms of who's the, who's the precinct captain or district captain of a district, like who is that person? How many police are placed there? What is their philosophy for policing in the area? All of those things are different across precincts.

And so, and through those mechanisms, you might see higher levels of arrests in particular areas. You might see more harsh policing in certain areas than others, and this kind of institutionally bliss through these micro structures 

Abbie Henson: [00:13:43] of departments. So I had a conversation yesterday that I think is salient to be as points too, about how.

Just simply increasing diversity in police departments is not a way to create change because diversity racial diversity within a police department does not guarantee diversity of thought. And I think that when we think that increasing diversity is a mechanism for change, I think that more often than not represents how, uh, proposals for change are drawn from often white uninformed perceptions of homogeny.

In races and ethnicities. And there's not an understanding that those who want to become police officers, although there is a small sub sector, people who are from, you know, highly surveilled high crime, predominantly black communities who want just to make better neighborhoods. There is often a reason why certain people are drawn to policing that doesn't necessarily differ across race, race, and ethnicity.

And so I think that it's really important when we're thinking about mechanisms for change and how to create a more equal and just an integrated society is not simply by diversifying in these ways. 

Monica Bell: [00:15:17] So one of the things that really troubles me about the diversity conversation, one of it is of course, what you, what you just said.

It's like this presumption of homogeneity, it's like, well, if they're black, they must be concerned about racial justice. It turns out they're oppressive black people. But in addition to that, there is also a failure to see how institutions reproduce themselves. You can actually feel so a whole police department with a fairly substantial number of people from racially marginalized communities and not see any change because the systems don't change.

The culture doesn't change. And in fact, people are socialized into particular sort of culture when they are come into police station apartments. And it's not just at the academy, it's also in the doing of the work. So all of this is to say, we fail to consider. The heterogeneity of, of communities. We fail to consider how institutions work, including their structure and their, their kind of, uh, culture and untangling.

The ideology of policing is, is critical. Now, I guess the, the other thing about this, this type of solutions like this, the same with diversity is also the same with body cameras is there's a failure to really see. How deep, the kind of social breaches on and how deep the mechanisms of racial oppression are.

So I've written about this in some work, instead of, you know, thinking about legal cynicism as a problem, or just like people always like, oh, black people don't trust the police. It's like, well, you know, it's not that simple, there's actually a way in which policing along with a number of other institutions produce what I've called legal estrangement.

So it's essentially a sense of exclusion that is group level, not just individual and a lot of these solutions like diversity and body cameras and certain types of training interventions deal with these problems as if they are kind of trust issues and not like deep structural. Like mechanisms of exclusion types of issues.

And so our solutions have to try to get at those systemic modes of exclusion. So that's kind of like what my soap box is on. 

Abbie Henson: [00:17:46] I want to, I think that's a good leeway into, um, this conversation on the complexity of perceptions of police in a lot of minoritized communities you did work with, as you said in DC with black mothers, looking at perceptions of police.

I did work in south Philly, Southwest Philly, um, looking at black fathers, perceptions of police. And so when I was reading your piece on this, there was a lot of overlap in terms of the nuance and complexity and perceptions. And I think something that you. That's so important that you know, is how cynicism and perceptions of police are not static.

And although they can have a baseline of cynicism in certain contexts, police are seen as either a way to gain other services or a way to just help in general, to, to feel safe. I interviewed many men who said how, you know, despite being brutalized by police, despite being, um, arrested, despite having a record, they didn't view all police as bad.

They viewed bad police as bad. They viewed dehumanizing police as bad, but they also recognized that there were some individuals who were just there to help, who wanted to respond in ways that helps the community. And I think this is important when we talk about cynicism, it's often more so towards the system itself and the structures that we're talking about in terms of the deeply entrenched racism and less about the individual officers.

And I think that's an important point to note, especially for people who are very pro-police and who are very critical of the. Quote unquote anti-police or the critical perspective, because there's a lot of defensiveness there. Um, especially when there are people who have family members or friends, or who are police officers, themselves, who view themselves as good people.

It's less about the individual and more about the structures that being within them as an individual, it is uphold. 

Monica Bell: [00:20:08] So that's, that's a hundred percent, right. I mean, there's so much there in what you said, it's like, well, start at the back. I mean, it's like, yeah, so. This whole, all individual police aren't bad.

Of course, that's true. Of course, that's true. You know, a lot of people go into policing because they believe they can help make their communities more safe. You know, I've had people I've interviewed say, oh, in another life, I'll be a police officer because they want to help their communities. And, you know, in a more recent piece, I talk about this, there's this like, but policing is part of the American dream.

And, you know, black people are not unaffected by that. This idea that police are there to serve and protect. There's a whole other type of issue though, which is like the divide between the ideal and sometimes reality. And I think there's occasionally, but there, there are times when individual police officers might be helpful for someone.

The bigger issue is not whether, you know, it's not, it's not about whether an officer can sometimes help. The bigger issue is that you never, you never have power over the police. Ultimately, if you're a minoritized and especially black person in America or indigenous person, and also that, that lack of control and that lack of power means that maybe you could call police and they would show up and be helpful and protect you.

Or maybe you could call police and wound up getting arrested because you're not believing them. There's just, there's no stability in that system. There is a much broader issue though, that, that you are also kind of tacking into at the beginning of what you were saying was so interesting. I think one of the, it's really fascinating to hear more about your dissertation work in black communities all the time.

People talk about what they like about police and have, as you said, this much more nuanced view. And I think. The question is what is the implication of that for policy and how we should think about moving forward and you know, some people, and this has happened a ton and the summer of 2020, all these news stories, you know, after the fund got a lot of traction and then there will be like a story.

And then your times, well, we talked to some black people talk to some other black people and they said they don't want to defund the police because sometimes they like police and it's like, this is just not useful, right? Like it's not, it's not relevant because defined is not claiming to represent all black people.

Like the, the point is, is a move as part of a larger movement. To make bold and visionary claims about how policing and ultimately society should be transformed. It's not like, well, if I've talked to some black people and they have a different view, then that erases the legitimacy of the movement. But I think this is because people fail to have, as you were kind of harping harping to earlier fail, to have a nuanced view of black and other marginalized communities, it's like, we don't all agree then, you know, it's like, well, how do I, how do I make sense of that?

And a lot of times people who are saying, oh, I want the lease. And I want protectionist is that people want safety. The starting point is that people want safety and security and community wellbeing. And right now in our society, what we have available to provide safety and security are police. And so even if people have had oppressive experiences with police.

If that's all, if that's the whole game, then that's what people talk about. And so there's just like really limited perspectives here. And so I was like, it's helpful to be able to have this conversation and talk about some of that. 

Abbie Henson: [00:23:56] Totally. A couple of things, one to bring it all back. That monolithic view of minoritized communities is very much an outcome of segregation.

The idea that you don't have exposure to diversity. And so you therefore can't see the diversity within groups other than your own. I think that's really important to note is that a lot of our social constructs are the outcomes of living in a segregated society, something you said about. Yes. So one of the things that's really difficult for many of the fathers that I interviewed, they were like, how do I navigate talking to my kids about this entity that has the power to both save their lives and take their lives.

And so when that's the case, when the people who can save your life also have the ability to take your life and have it be viewed as legitimate. Right. There's with limited accountability, then it's really difficult to navigate. And I think the other thing that you're saying is that not only are police the only option right now in terms of the provision of safety to a large scale, but also they are often the gatekeepers for other services for mental health services for tapping into these.

Needed social services. And I have, uh, one of my best friends is a school social worker, and she often deals with this when she's like, I need to get this kid therapy. I need to get this kid meds. I need to get this kid proper housing. And the way that I have to do that sometimes is by calling child protective services.

And that is not the route that we should be going to have to open a case for someone to then be able to gain services. Yeah. 

Monica Bell: [00:26:00] I mean, and here's the thing that would be okay. Theoretically, if these people that you have to call weren't so punitive in child protective services and the police are too oppressive systems and, you know, the.

I mean, the, the mothers in DC that I interviewed, which is like one project, but, you know, we're talking about, you know, a lot, you know, really talked about. I mean, I'm all, like more than half of them had had some kind of run in with child protective services and essentially work. Just as they're more concerned about Tal protective services than about the police, but then there's like, this is broader point, which is leave.

Don't have systems of social provision that are non incarceral right now. And this is one of the really big questions moving forward from the defund movement. Right. So, I mean, which is still ongoing and, you know, actions are still happening both, you know, come at federal state and local levels. But what has really been interesting is how many local governments are saying, okay, well, we're not really going to defund the police.

Maybe we'll take, you know, a bit of money. Maybe we won't. We want to invest in some of the alternative social systems you folk thing to be asking for. And one of the. Initial impulse is to say, well, we should take from the carceral state and invest in the welfare state. Is that well right now the welfare state in part, because it has also become a system of racialized management, especially, you know, since the 1960s or so, you know, that that system has also a lot of problems.

And so to invest in alternatives to the current regime, Means to in many ways, expand new types of systems and to create an entirely new types of governance. And so, so that I think is really, really critical because we shouldn't need to kind of use police or CPS or other sorts of carceral juror bureaucracies as gatekeepers in order to, for people who have lived on the margins of society, to be able to get services that many of the rest of us, including me at this point in time are able to take advantage of, or without going through those types of 

Abbie Henson: [00:28:19] structures.

It's important to note too, that the racism that's entrenched in policing and, you know, child protective services is very much entrenched in a lot of these other services. It's entrenched in social work. It's entrenched in education. It's entrenched in all of these services that we think, right, housing it's, it's deeply embedded in all of these alternative, uh, systems that.

It's not just that we need to do work to look and unpack these carceral systems, but it's, it's everywhere, right? Like it's America, this was, this is a country founded on racist ideals, anything that is not being created in the current cultural moment. That's more aware and attuned to these issues is probably problematic.

And so we need to really. Look at when we're thinking about change to be so incredibly critical of any change that we're proposing and not just slap a bandaid on it with an existence thing that is probably problematic in and of 

Monica Bell: [00:29:32] itself. You know, I mean, I think, I think, you know, there there's a lot there.

One thing I try to, you know, it's like I teach law students. And so a lot of what, you know, a lot of them want to do really practical work to advance the cause of justice and none of the satisfactory. So, you know, you said we have to reflect an art form or forms and realize that a lot of them are going to be problematic.

And I think that's right. So I try to, like, instead of thinking about the work, a lot of lawyers especially do as. Promoting justice. I mean, it is, but a lot of that is harm reduction work. I mean, if we expand out the notion of harm reduction, recognizing that, you know, you may not be able to get to the end goal, whatever it is, you know, big time, racial justice, or, you know, a, a fully functional and, you know, non oppressive welfare state abolition of the prison, industrial complex, like all of these big goals may not be able to get there tomorrow.

The question is what are the incremental steps you're making toward whatever your conception of justices and to make sure that you're never satisfied with them because they are incremental. They are not full achievement. And that's okay. It's about being in the struggle. And so that, that I think is like really that reorientation is really, really important for, you know, just.

For yes. For hopefully being able to reach one of these visions one day. 

Abbie Henson: [00:31:08] Yeah. So God, you're flowing perfectly through my outline right now. So I have the next question. What's the difference between systemic reform and systems of harm reduction. So I would love for you to talk about in terms of harm reduction, your concept of anti segregation policing, and one of the questions that you pose.

And one of the questions that I maintain is, is the concept of anti segregation, policing oxymoronic in that policing is inherently segregating from its inception in America. It has been, it has existed to serve as a segregating unit. So is it even possible to do that or do something different? 

Monica Bell: [00:31:57] Yeah, I mean, so.

It may or may not be possible. You know, it's, it's easier for me to say it's not possible, but I don't, you know, I don't, I don't want to be too limiting, but I, but here's the thing. There is a duty. Everyone has a duty to press forward wherever they are to advance the cause of justice in particularly here.

But when I was thinking about this, this anti segregation policing article, I was thinking about all the police chiefs I've had conversations with who want to be anti-racist, but don't seem to fully share my view that there is a way in which racism is baked into the enterprise. I mean, there's a question about like, what do you do with that also, right?

Like it's like, so you recognize a racism is baked into the enterprise. Okay. What's step two. And so anti segregation policing in my view is kind of like a step two. Given where we are right now, which is that we have police forces. And if we were to get rid of some of them, people would have private police forces.

I mean, this is a deep issue. This is, it all comes back to anti-black this, the white supremacy and how it works. So like, given those kinds of that, given the status quo, what should people who say they're about justice be doing? And so that that's, that's the thought. And it's also, hopefully not the type of, you know, the, the specific reforms, our offer in the investigation, policing article.

Are not the type of reforms that I think would contribute to legitimation of the status quo. So things like strategic police non-response so, you know, saying, okay, well this call seems like it might be racist. Like it might, it might just not, it might not have origins of like an. Actual concern about safety.

And so instead of the police showing up, calculate the risk differently and say, maybe it's risky for us to show up. You know, I think about this often in the context of Elijah McLean and the nine one, one called there was just nothing. It was like, oh, I see this person. He looks weird. Police come and kill.

And McLean like is, is so deeply disturbing. And if the risks were calculated differently at a departmental level, then you know, a lodge and McClain might still be with us. And so, you know, that is an example of a type of reform that falls from the anti segregation policing model. Now is that. Uh, fully abolitionist.

I don't know. You know, like it depends on your view. I am less interested in litmus testing and much more interested in thinking really concretely and critically about given where we are, how do we move towards these big goals? And so I really offer anti segregation policing, as you know, it's almost like in some ways, calling some police leaders bluff, right?

Like it's like, okay. So if you say you're about racial justice, then why don't you implement anti-Semite anti segregation approach, maybe that, you know, and you know, we'll see how it goes, but it's, it may not be possible 

Abbie Henson: [00:35:14] recognize. I think that idea of the non-response is so interesting because when you talk about the risk of showing up at one point, you talk about how it.

It's more about the social meaning of the interaction rather than the individuals involved in the interaction. And I think when we're talking about cynicism, that's constructed within culture and within communities. If you can see that, well, I guess you wouldn't be able to see cause they wouldn't be coming.

But if there's a non-response that goes into the collective consciousness of a group, that's saying, oh, these police realize that this could have been harmful to us. And it's not actually about safety. It's about race. You know, it says something to the people, watching the interaction, when the police come for an Elijah MacLean call or for.

Uh, Cooper wa birdwatching call, right? Like it says something not only to the individuals involved, but to everyone watching. 

Monica Bell: [00:36:20] Yeah. I mean, as I think that's, I think the, the social meaning point is really key. I mean, so even we think about the Amy Cooper, Chris Cooper incident, the fact that Amy Cooper was like, I'm going to tell them that a black man is threatening me was just a very clear recognition of the social meaning of police and the meaning.

It would have to Christian Cooper. I think about some of the research I've done. You know, I talk about. In my article, how police function is border patrol. One of the examples I give is of this young, uh, black man, Richard, I call him in the article who was in a white neighborhood with some of his friends.

And he was kind of exploring the neighborhood cause they'd never been there before. And, you know, Someone, he doesn't know who called the police. The police show up totally polite, follow all of the rules of procedural justice, leave them alone, but the message was still sent. And I think what's really significant about what you just said is that there's also like if the police just hadn't come, they hadn't bothered to deal with this nonsense.

That would have said something to the collar as well. What would have sent a different sort of message about what the police. The police purposes, of course, you know, there's, there's a risk of legitimation and that type of, that way of thinking. And, you know, I don't want to paper over that too much, but I do think, you know, if we want to think about what a state looks like that says we are anti-racist, that has to be part of it.

It's like, well, we're not going to support you. And you're carrying out of private racism. And that I think is the type of change that we need for the type of state, you know, even setting aside the police in particular that we want to have. 

Abbie Henson: [00:38:06] And I think, you know, I try and have these podcasts be a safe space for people who.

Might feel like who have internalized those messages who may live in predominantly white neighborhoods, who then would go outside and see a group of black kids and have internalized messages of threat and would be a potential color. And thinking about how, when we talk, when we call out racism in these conversations, when we call out white supremacy at this point with the knowledge now is where it's not, it's not an act of shaming and it's not an act of demonizing.

It's now a call to action. It's. Now you have the knowledge you have now, the exposure to different perspectives. Now it's. On you, whether you're going to further, uh, problematic and racist, social constructs and, uh, acts of racism, especially routine racism like you speak about, or if you're going to use this information to then further a, a call to action.

No, no, 

Monica Bell: [00:39:25] no. I mean, I think, I think that's so right. I mean, you know, I think a lot of. White people who participate in this type of behavior, they, it's not intentional. In fact, we have, we have those signs. If you see something, say something better, safe than sorry, like all of these, all of these, like, you know, adage is we have that support, that type of racialized police calling and, you know, and so unlearning that is very hard work is, is actually work that not just white people have to do, actually we all have these types of cultural.

We have access to, you know, what, what we call in sociology, certain types of cultural frames and these support. A racist activity. And so now that one is aware of them, one is responsible for acting to fight against them. And that work is multi-layered, it's not internal, but it's also external. It means not just, I'm going to try to work on myself and be less individually racist.

It also means engaging with the community, engaging with institutions and trying to shift them because nothing's going to change just on an individual level. It's not just psychological, it's also sociological and economic and political. 

Abbie Henson: [00:40:46] So that flows perfectly into our last point on the racism response funds.

And so this is something that you posed. Recently and exactly to the point, it's more about holding communities accountable rather than individuals and about holding accountability in general, rather than the idea of paying for forgiveness. And the underlying purpose would be not only to repair and hold accountability, but also to just bring consciousness to the issue and to the forefront of the conversation.

So if you can give a little. Context as to what racism response funds are or the idea of them. 

Monica Bell: [00:41:35] Yeah, absolutely. I mean, so racism, response funds is an idea I had the summer after the Amy Cooper, Chris Cooper incident, um, also had, so, you know, we had an incident at, at Yale before I was teaching at Yale and in which, you know, a white student called of the campus police on a black student and is really complicated.

And, you know, I haven't written about this in a footnote, in my anti segregation policing article. So basically the, the, the person who, you know, had called the police, it was a really complicated story, but I was just thinking, you know, the. We have a tendency to blame and shame individuals about racist police calling.

And, but, but actually so many people are always on the brink of doing something like this, right? It's like, Hmm, that person looks suspicious. Should I call, should I not call? And you know, and also whether the person starts filming and cat like catalogs that, you know, I've had my own experience where a neighbor or someone called the police on me.

When I was trying to enter my own apartment when I was in law school, this stuff happens all the time. Because it happens all the time. We can be aware that it's not just about particular racist individuals. It's about a larger culture we need to reconstruct and that larger culture is also local. And so the idea of racism, racism, response funds is to shift the conversation.

Instead of like having a shaming system, we could, instead of have more of an accountability system, you know, where perhaps the new model it off after something like community bail funds where, you know, the person who was, was aggrieved might get some type of monetary support for whatever counseling or whatever sites have.

So it's just basically signify and apology, uh, from the community and an agreement then therefore to reckon with what went wrong and to try to create alternative tropes. So the idea of racism, response funds there's a month, there's a monetary element is kind of similar to reparations. It's a monetary element, but the bigger element is to.

Have collective accountability and in the think really hard about how to unwind these kind of tropes of racism, these frames of racism. And so, so that's, that's essentially that the idea that it could happen at a community level, but there are also other types of models. There are state level victim's compensation funds, you know, you could have something more like that.

So I have a short piece on this since giving some lectures, but I'm actually at work with Jordan Brewington who is a scholar of reparations about to kind of flushing out more fully, how something like this would actually work and what his warrants would be. And so we're working on that. So, you know, stay tuned, but that's the basic idea.

Abbie Henson: [00:44:33] Some people might question why we would bring money into it. And I think something that's important to know is that in America, our biggest punishment, you know, our, our most punitive punishment is the removal of freedom. And I think we also know in a capitalist society, that money is representative of freedom, right?

Money allows us to move in certain ways. It allows us to feel a sense of ability and power and freedom specifically. And so I think if we're saying that this community, uh, racism response fund would be a way to hold people accountable, or in other words, in some ways as a punitive measure, to demonstrate that this was a wrongdoing.

Then by removing an individual sense of freedom through money. I think there's a bigger impact on the people who would be contributing, right? Like there's, there's this idea that by giving up to some degree, your freedom or money for this act, that's why I think money is important here. Yeah. I mean, 

Monica Bell: [00:45:56] so, so yeah, that's interesting.

That's, that's one way of thinking about it. I found that really fascinating and the equation of money with freedom, you know, kind of more like granular level. I think, you know, the amount might not be enough to actually significantly affect someone's freedom that they're contributing to it. But I think, you know, in systems of tour, Well, like we have systems already that like the tort system is largely a system in which non petunia very often physical or emotional injuries are kind of responded to with monetary compensation.

And, you know, that is like the essence of small claims. There are actually, you know, some proposals that. People have offered, you know, instead of creating more kind of criminal system responses, when people engage in this type of racist police, calling peanuts, some people said, oh, well, let's have more misdemeanor crimes.

Not really a supporter of that. There are some states in which they have pursued creating a civil suit. So tort damages like small claims. So maybe the person has to pay $250 or something like that. It's, it's not new for people to be compensated with money when they have suffered certain types of harms.

And so I think what's novel about racism. Response funds is not so much the money is instead the kind of collective accountability and the focus on healing and all the other aspects that go along with it instead of saying, oh, this is a bad individual. This is a, you know, so let's Sue them and get a few dollars from them to saying, no, this is like a bad cultural frame.

So let's, let's deal with that. Um, while also offering some type of token of, of recognition, healing and apology that is monetary to, to the victim. Yeah. I 

Abbie Henson: [00:47:47] think the, the element of community and creating culture is really important because you're, you're very much influenced by the people around you, whether you realize that or not.

And so if your neighbor. Is in some ways allowing your behavior to occur. Uh, you know, it very much is, you know, the adage of it takes a village. It does. And in a lot of ways, for a lot of things and to. Move towards a, an anti-racist culture. It starts, as you're saying at the local level. And of course it starts from within the individual, but the individual, we can't view the individual.

As in a vacuum, we are products of our environment. We are products of our social interactions. And so if we know that we're social beings, whose frameworks are very much influenced by that, which is around us, it is on the community. 

Monica Bell: [00:48:50] Yeah, I think that's right. And I think that's, I think that's more right.

In some areas than others. So like, you know, I'm sure like there was like a criminal law scholar authors thinking, well, what about individual culpability? Right. You know, it's like we have a, our entire system is based on individual culpability, figuring out how culpable a person is. And it's not right to say that because someone comes from like a bad environment, but they never have any individual culpability for their actions.

That's true. In one might say that about racism, right? So it's like, you know, sure. The whole community might be racist, but this individual actually acted. And I think in the context of teen acts of racism, like racist police calling. I think the culpability is fairly low there. I think it's almost an impulse that says it's an easy act to call the police.

People tell you, you should do it. If, you know, if things seem suspicious, there's the element of safety and fear that, that you know, is, is really baked into these like racist ideas of who's dangerous. All of this is going on with that individual. And so I think culpability individual culpability is relatively low and in certain cases, not all of them.

And so that's why I think particularly here, the community accountability is really important because what we should all be telling each other. And like when, when someone is like articulating assessment of racist ideas, like we should, we have a responsibility to be anti-racist. And to the extent the community has failed to really do that as most communities have.

That's why there's, I think, I think a special need to focus on the collectivity aspect in these instances, as opposed to perhaps other types of acts where there might be more individual culpability. 

Abbie Henson: [00:50:43] You mentioned this briefly in one of your articles. And I think I had a conversation with, um, with someone recently speaking about this, who.

The idea like to be anti-racist is not just for the benefit of those who are on the front end of racism. Right? Like to be, anti-racist also, it's helpful for everyone in society. This is not just, you know, something you're doing for the benefit of others, even though that's important. And I wish that, you know, as we saw with wearing masks, people, aren't altruistic in that way.

We're very much self centered people. We, we center ourselves in our actions and it's really difficult for us to think about just doing a favor for someone else without any added benefit for ourselves. So, although I wish that this didn't have to be part of the conversation. I think it is important to know that.

Being anti-racist being a calling for anti segregation, policing. These things are not just for the benefit of others. They, they benefit all of us in society because if we're perpetuating less harm to others, we're less likely to be harmed ourselves. If we're perpetuating less violence to others, it's likely that we're going to be less likely the victim of violence ourselves.

And so I think that when we think about the purpose of leaning towards justice, whenever there's social hierarchy, a racial hierarchy, a demonization of groups that ultimately gets reflected back on us in a way that helps no one. So I think that the harm caused to others has to be understood that it's likely to come back around and.

So I think while in an ideal world, we wouldn't need that for B uh, achievement of justice. I think it has to be unfortunately a necessary part of the conversation. 

Monica Bell: [00:53:07] No, no, I think so. I think that's right. And I think, you know, like everything you said is like really multiple layers. So it's like, yes, it is bad for white people for there to be a serious division in society and certain types of oppression.

But, you know, I guess so I guess the question is like what type of farm is it to white people? Right. So like, I mean, I think we've seen, uh, throughout American history for sure that the type of racial hierarchy and oppression, it has some negative effects for certain groups of white people, but for, you know, for.

Privileged people as a whole, often white, it kind of works out for them at an economic and political level. But, but the real question is what type of society are we building? Is it a sustainable society is, and what type of morality are we orienting ourselves around? And this kind of like self interested organism, it's kind of hard because I is functional, but I do actually think we have to have a serious conversation about what our ground rules are.

Like, what type of, what type of society are you trying to build? What type of solidarity are you trying to have? And I do think ultimately collective notions of justice in which I actually do care about someone else's and by someone else's, I mean, some other groups of mine do care about their wellbeing.

That's, that's what we need to cultivate. At the same time, we recognize that kind of pull at a political level. We sometimes have to make self-interested styles of arguments in order to move forward. So it's really complicated. It's really complicated. 

Abbie Henson: [00:55:01] I think. Again, and bring it back around. I think the way that you get others to care about the wellbeing of groups other than their own is again, through proximity, through integration, through starting to care, even on that individual level about one other person who isn't of your own race to recognize, oh, I care about your wellbeing.

And then the exposure through that person, because we live in a segregated society, it's likely that through that person, you'll be exposed to more diversity and more people who aren't like you and build those relationships and build those compassions and empathy. And so I think to go back to our conversation on reform and change and diversity, I don't think that simply increasing diversity in criminal justice agencies is going to get us to a place of justice.

I do think that increasing diversity, just as an exposure mechanism will. Possibly change the minds of individuals who feel unfamiliar and therefore feel 

Monica Bell: [00:56:08] threatened. Yeah. So I think, I think exposure is key. I mean, that's like the, that's the whole rationale behind diversity in higher education. Right. And so we think about, you know, affirmative action debates and diversity.

That's, that's the rationale. But I do think exposure's not enough exposure as a starting point is a critical starting point is obviously necessary, but there also has to be a real willingness to engage. And we've seen this, you know, in the context of universities and also in the context of, you know, integrated housing, you know, it's like, well, integration, what does that mean?

How is that desirable? It's it needs to come along with some kinds of reorientation of power. And that I think, you know, listeners on an individual level might be thinking, well, how am I supposed to do something about that? It's like, okay, I've exposed myself. How do I reorient power? And I think it's like, Really.

So at an individual level, it's not okay. I'm going to interact with this diverse person and they're going to show me like how to. I don't know, they're going to tell me about themselves. I'm going to learn from them. This is kind of extractive way, but it's instead of really think about what's good for them, like allow that relationship to transform how you think about what you were old.

And that I think is, you know, at a very micro level, you know, I'm, I'm more of a structuralist. So as far for me to speak at a micro level, but I think at a micro level, that's, that's a helpful 

Abbie Henson: [00:57:36] place to start. Yeah. I think it, it has to come with conversation. It has to come with conversation about. Issues of racism and race.

It's not simply just exposure to diversity. And I think actually just simply exposure to diversity without the conversations can lead to a lot of colorblind racism where like, for me, for example, I grew up in New York city. I grew up in Manhattan and Brooklyn. I was on the step team. I was on the hip hop dance team.

I was the captain I like was exposed to diversity throughout my entire life. And all that did for me was I was like, Oh, we laugh the same. We cry the same. We're the same. I don't see color or the same, but I didn't recognize because we weren't having the conversation. I wasn't recognizing the difference in experience.

Yes. There are all these similarities on a very micro human level, but there were so many differences in experience that I wasn't aware of because we weren't having those conversations. And it was only until I started having those conversations really in grad school that I was like, oh, okay, I get it now.

Right? Like there was a level of acceptance that I had that I think is important and needed, but then to understand the layers beyond that is so important. So I think it's not just slapping in diversity, but also having the conversations. 

Monica Bell: [00:59:05] Yeah, that's fascinating. That is so fascinating and so important.

That's so important. 

Abbie Henson: [00:59:10] Well, I have really enjoyed this conversation. I am so happy to have been able to speak to you and, um, yeah. Thank you for sharing all of your insights. 

Monica Bell: [00:59:22] Well, thank you. This was really fun. And I look forward to staying in touch. 

Abbie Henson: [00:59:28] Thank you so much for participating in my critical conversation with Dr.

Monica bell. I think her point on Ewing incremental change as sources of harm reduction rather than reform is an important framing. We can't become complacent with minimal efforts, but just simply use them as a springboard to the next level of change. The idea that police serve to segregate is something that is.

Obvious to me now, but something I hadn't thought elicitly about before the fact that police create arbitrary. Yep. Purposeful boundary lines to construct precincts often based on race and class and how hyper surveillance and the criminalization of certain activities in this communities serves to perpetuate poverty and stigmatization.

This aligned a lot with Andrea Boyles and Laken Jordahl conversations on the patrolling of racial borders in season one, I also found the idea of purposeful non-response really intriguing. I was recently having a conversation with a New York city firefighter, and he was saying how they've gotten a lot of calls recently from people complaining about the propane tanks that restaurants are using outdoors for heaters.

And he explained how he knows. And the firefighters know that restaurants are just doing the best they can with the conditions of the pandemic and that rather than shutting the outdoor seating down, they'll often go to the restaurant manager, let them know there's been a complaint. And to be mindful that there are people who are quote unquote out to get them and then allow them to continue to work.

So imagine police pulling up to a black man, they received a tip about in a white neighborhood. Who's just walking along. Yeah. And saying, Hey, you might want to be on the lookout. People are seeing you as a threat and you don't know how they'll respond and actually protecting this guy from racism rather than leaning into it.

I was super into the idea of the community, racism, response funds, and holding the community accountable rather than the individual for the racist act. We are such an individualized society and we love pointing a finger at others instead of turning inwards and realizing that we likely had similar thoughts or feelings that we just didn't act on.

We are all Karen until we are actively not until we are putting efforts forward towards learning and challenging the status quo. Next episode, I'll be speaking with Michael Fisher, previously incarcerated individual, who is now a writer, advocate and activist. Michael. And I speak about how language matters when speaking about system involved, individuals, how his whiteness shaped his experience at each level of the criminal justice system and how even the most progressive perpetuate the idea of the quote unquote model inmate or quote unquote model returned citizen and how this is detrimental to the fight for justice and equality.

I hope you'll tune in expect new episodes every other Monday. And don't forget to subscribe rate, and please leave that review. I'm Abbie Henson, and this was critical conversations.