Tag Archives: Critical Race Theory

Racialized Social Hierarchy and the Chinese Immigration Act

In 1885, after the completion of the Canadian Pacific railway, the Canadian government implemented the Chinese Immigration Act which excluded Chinese immigrants from being acknowledged as a person. On July 20th of the same year, there was a head tax of $50 imposed on Chinese immigrants coming to Canada. This placed a financial burden on men, women and children attempting to enter the country and therefore created a limit as to who could enter. Not only did immigrants have to pay to enter the country, there were further restrictions placed on them once they arrived. Chinese immigrants were not allowed to take part in any organizations of courts and could be fined. Even if immigrants paid the head tax, they had to carry proof of purchase around and could still be challenged by authorities. Those who were born into Canada still had to pay a fee to register with authorities due to their race.

The immigration act was amended twice, increasing the head tax from $50 to $100 in 1900 and even higher to $500 in 1903. Those trying to come over to Canada had to spend a substantial amount of their money just to be able to stay in the country, leaving them with almost nothing to survive with. Restrictions were placed on leaving the country as well. Two years was the maximum time allowed to return to Canada, any time after this, immigrants were forced to pay the $500 head tax once again. This prohibited any Chinese immigrant from going back home to see family that could not afford to pay the tax, as well as any travel to other countries. This eventually led to the Chinese Exclusion Act in 1923 which created a complete prohibition on Chinese immigrants coming to Canada. The two year time limit to return to Canada was still in place, except that instead of an additional fine if the time limit was surpassed, immigrants were no longer allowed to reenter the country. Some immigrants though, escaped purely racist immigration laws by entering the country “through what became known as the ‘paper sons’ system” (Goldring, 2013). This system allowed immigrants to use someone else’s papers in order to enter the country. Over 11,000 people made their way into the country by using this system, and it was not until the Chinese Adjustment Statement Program that these immigrants were acknowledged. The government collected millions of dollars from Chinese immigrants in the time that such acts were implemented. Years later on June 22, 2006, Prime Minister Stephen Harper made a formal apology to those who had been affected by the head tax. Those who may have paid the tax, or were a spouse of a tax payer who was forced to pay the tax were compensated with a redress. This still left out other family members that may have been affected.

Critical race theory focuses not just on the individual, but the role the law itself has in constructing and reproducing racism. Because this theory focuses on historical forms of racism, and the experiences of groups affected in their analysis, critical race theory would explain the actions taken place during the exclusions of Chinese immigrants by stating that this group was constructed as ‘others’. This furthers the thinking of white superiority and allows those who come from a different race to feel less deserving than those of white skin color. In this specific case study, the approaches to race described by Comack of biological and cultural both explain the ways in which Chinese immigrants were discriminated against. The head tax, which was to be paid by those who came from China, created a type of social sorting that helped maintain the racial hierarchy, especially when it came to jobs that were deemed undesirable by the Canadian population. Comack states that cultural approaches view “race as a product of the cultural characteristics of different groups” (2006). In this way, it allows a dominant culture to make decisions and changes that effect the inferior group substantially. Race is seen as socially constructed when looked at through this approach, and is constructed at this time to give the Canadian government more power over the people entering the country by giving Chinese immigrants the idea that they are less deserving of the title of citizen, and even the ability to call oneself a person. The Canadian government used things such as the law to normalize racial hierarchy. This further excluded Chinese immigrants from settling into a life in Canada as workplaces were hesitant to hire and thus made it difficult for those with head tax receipts to maintain a living while in Canada. Even those who were Canadian born faced discrimination due to legislation that was directed toward excluding Chinese citizens.

Many people who were affected by the legislation and head tax are no longer around to be apologized to. Although the government has implemented a redress and have formally apologized, it is difficult for families to feel they have received adequate recognition when they are not eligible to receive compensation. This is because they are not a spouse of a person who paid the head tax, but as it was mentioned, many of these people are no longer around to be able to collect. Younger generations of members of the families affected have created various organizations and websites trying to educate Canadians on what is really going on. Such organizations set out to seek fairness for those who are still suffering financially, to promote racial fairness and equality across Canada and to teach Canadians what the government is capable of doing and what we can do to stop it from happening again.

References

Comack, E. (2006). Theoretical approaches in the sociology of law: Theoretical excursions. In. E Comack (Ed.) Locating law: race/class/gender/sexuality connections (2nd ed., p. 54-55) Halifax, NS: Fernwood Pub.     

Goldring, L. & Landolt, P. (2013). Producing and Negotiating Non-Citizenship. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press

“Taxing the Chinese.” Road to Justice » Chinese Head Tax. N.p., n.d. Web. 29 Oct. 2014.

Advertisements

Comments Off on Racialized Social Hierarchy and the Chinese Immigration Act

Filed under Contributor Post

The Perpetuation of Racialized Social Hierarchy through Residential Schools in Canada

Residential schools are a dark part of Canada’s history. The goal of residential schools was to assimilate Aboriginal peoples to the European settlers of Canada. The Canadian government implemented a program of “aggressive assimilation” (Monchalin, n.d., slide 3) as a way to “remake these savages in [their] own image” (Monchalin, n.d., slide 2). Residential schools operated in Canada from 1831 – 1996; in fact, residential schools were in operation even before Canada officially became a country. By 1920, it “became mandatory for all Native children to attend one of Canada’s residential schools” (Monchalin, n.d., slide 4). At their peak, there were 80 residential schools in operation across Canada (Monchalin, n.d., slide 3). At the schools, Aboriginal children were forced to only speak English, as well as adopt a Christian faith. The children were provided with an inferior education that often only went up to a fifth grade level (Monchalin, n.d., slide 5). Typically, the education was geared towards manual labour training for boys and domestic work for girls (Monchalin, n.d., slide 5). Furthermore, many of the children at residential schools were subjected to severe emotional, physical, and sexual abuse (Monchalin, n.d., slide 7). For a more personal look at residential schools, please watch the powerful Canadian documentary ‘We Were Children (also available on Netflix).

Critical race theory recognizes race and racism as “systemic, structural, and cultural, as deeply psychologically and socially ingrained” (Pavlich, 2011, p. 130). Essentially, race and racism serve an intended purpose in society. The residential schools of Canada are a prime example of the role of law as a “mechanism for the reproduction and perpetuation of racialized social hierarchy” (Larsen, 2014). The racism and ethnocide of the residential schools in Canada was not the least bit subtle. The settlers/government of Canada viewed Aboriginal peoples as ‘savages’ in need of guidance. By using their power, the government was able to implement laws for their agenda of assimilation. This plan proudly had the appearance of superiority, as if the colonizers of Canada were doing the Aboriginal peoples a favour by taking the responsibility to help them fit into society. The Aboriginal children were taught that their culture, language, and ways of life were an abomination. Attendance was mandatory, yet the lessons at school were not helpful. The residential schools were a way for the government to construct, reproduce, and reinforce racism in society (Comack, 2006).

It was not until 1990 that those whom opposed residential schools could be heard on a national level. Phil Fontaine, the then-leader of the Association of Manitoba Chiefs, demanded the church acknowledge all the abuse suffered by Aboriginal children in the schools (“A history …”, 2008). In response, the federal government created the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. This commission was required to conduct an inquiry and finally the wrongs of the residential schools could no longer be ignored. Over the following years, the government worked with the churches that had ran the schools to develop a compensation plan (“A history …”, 2008). The Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement included Common Experience Payment (CEP), Independent Assessment Process (IAP), Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC), and Aboriginal Healing Foundation (AHF) (Monchalin, n.d., slide 16). The CEP provided $1.9 billion to former students of residential schools. By accepting this part of the agreement, the survivors forfeited the right to request more money in the future. The IAP was set up to address all of the claims of physical and sexual abuse (“A history of …”, 2008). The TRC examines the negative legacy of the residential schools that continue to effect Aboriginal peoples to this day (“A history …”, 2008). The AHF was established to help the victims that experienced physical and sexual abuse, but the federal funding for that project has ended (“A history …”, 2008). On June 11, 2008, Canada’s Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, formally acknowledged and apologized to residential school students for the discrimination and abuse they were subjected to. The Christian churches that played a role in the schools offered public apologies, with the exception of the Catholic Church whom offered an ‘expression of regret’ rather than an apology (Monchalin, n.d., slide 18).

Residential schools provided a platform for the Canadian government to embed and reproduce racism. While the government’s goal was clear with residential schools, there application of dominance over Aboriginal peoples is slightly subtler now. The government was able to limit Aboriginal peoples in their compensation package; in order to receive monetary compensation, the former students had to agree not to request more money in the future. Also, the government agreed to set up the AHF in order to help the victims deal with the abuse the suffered, yet they no longer provide any funding for the program. The survivors of residential schools continue to have their lives shaped by their experiences there (Monchalin, n.d., slide 22). The students were “deprived of care, love, and guidance by their parents during the most critical years of childhood” (Monchalin, n.d, slide 21), resulting in the legacy of residential schools as being overwhelmingly negative. Residential schools had, and will continue to have, a lasting effect on Aboriginal peoples.

References

A history of residential schools in Canada. (2008, May 16). CBC News. Retrieved from http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/a-history-of-residential-schools-in-canada-1.702280

Comack, E. (2006). Theoretical approaches in the sociology of law: Theoretical excursions. In. E. Comack (Ed.) Locating law: race/class/gender/sexuality connections (2nd ed., p. 18-67). Halifax, NS: Fernwood Pub.

Larsen, M. (2014, October 24). Food for thought: Applying critical race theory [Web blog post]. Retrieved from https://kpulawandsociety.wordpress.com/

Monchalin, L. (n.d.). Agenda of assimilation: Residential schools and intergenerational trauma [PowerPoint slides]. Retrieved October 20, 2013 from https://courses.kpu.ca/course/view.php?id=685

Pavlich, G. (2011). Law and society redefined. Don Mills, Canada: Oxford University Press.

1 Comment

Filed under Contributor Post

Food for Thought: Applying Critical Race Theory

This week, we studied Critical Race Theory, with an emphasis on Michelle Alexander’s (2012) The New Jim Crow as a case study. My lecture notes include the following overview of CRT:

Critical Race Theory shares many of the commitments and ideas of the broader Critical Legal Studies movement – the deconstruction of ideologies (especially legal ideologies) that support social hierarchies, consciousness-raising, and law reform in the pursuit of egalitarian social relations. To this list, we can add a number of key ideas that inform CRT:

  • The recognition that racism is no (simply) a matter of individual prejudices and biases, but a phenomenon embedded in and reproduced by social structures and institutions – including legal institutions.
  • An emphasis on exploring the historical basis of contemporary forms of racism and racialization embedded in law.
  • A commitment to ‘reconstructing’ and reforming law in order to eliminate identifiable forms of racialized hierarchies.
  • A commitment to taking the lived realities and experiences of racialized groups as a starting point for analysis. This implies the use of narrative accounts and interdisciplinary approaches.

For this week’s ‘food for thought’ question, I would like to encourage you to apply CRT to a case study of your choice.

Food for thought:

Select a contemporary or historical example of a legal institution or process involved in the reproduction and perpetuation of racialized social hierarchy. You could focus on a particular statute, a broader legal regime, or an illustrative case study. You need not select a Canadian example. You may not choose ‘racialized mass incarceration in the USA under the New Jim Crow’, as we have covered Alexander’s analysis. You may not choose R. v. Kahpeaysewat, as this was covered by Pavlich (2011).

Write a post that:

  • Introduces and briefly describes the example you have selected, with reference to supporting source materials (this should account for no more than 1/3 of your post).
  • Draws on Critical Race Theory to explain how your selected example is illustrative of the role of law as a mechanism for the reproduction and perpetuation of racialized social hierarchy.
  • Explains how individuals, groups, or movements have responded to this issue by attempting to reform and ‘reconstruct’ law.

Be sure to engage with relevant sources (ex. Pavlich 2011; Comack 2006; Alexander 2012). While you cannot reproduce Alexander’s analysis, you can certainly draw on her observations.

Posts prepared in response to this question must be submitted before class on November 4, 2014.

Comments Off on Food for Thought: Applying Critical Race Theory

Filed under food for thought

Food for Thought: CLS, Racism, and Law

This week marked our first of three teach-in weeks, with two teach-ins based on works by Monture (2006) and Jakubowski (2006).

Locating Law – Standing Against Canadian Law: Naming Omissions of Race, Culture, and Gender (Monture), pp. 73-93

Locating Law – “Managing” Canadian Immigration: Racism, Ethnic Selectivity, and the Law (Jakubowski), pp. 94-122

The general theme of the class was an introduction to Critical Legal Studies, with a special emphasis on racism and law.

There are two food for thought questions for this week. You are welcome to write a post in response to either of them (but not both).

Food for thought 1:

Monture’s (2006) chapter is subtitled “Naming Omissions of Race, Culture, and Gender”. ‘Naming’, in this context, reflects the commitment to demystification – critically examining official narratives and dominant ideologies – that informs the Critical Legal Studies and Critical Race Theory perspectives.

Recently, and not for the first time, there has been some debate regarding the appropriate way of naming the historical oppression of Aboriginal peoples in Canada. Some have argued that the actions of Canadian governments in relation to Aboriginal peoples constitute genocide, according to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.

Article 2 of the Convention reads:

genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Phil Fontaine, Bernie Farber, and others recently co-signed a letter to the UN Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples arguing that the residential school system, the ‘Sixties Scoop’, policy of forced starvation under John A. MacDonald, and recently revealed nutrition experiments performed on children, taken together, are indicative of a prolonged campaign of genocide.

Monture (2006) explains the historical role of legal processes in the reproduction of systemic racism and oppression directed towards Canada’s Aboriginal peoples. She is deeply skeptical about the prospect of achieving transformative change through the mainstream justice system, arguing that it is simply incapable of engaging in the macro-level reflection necessary to confront structural racism.

Question: Would naming the historical oppression of Aboriginal peoples in Canada genocide, according to the Convention, be an act of demystification? What would be the outcome or effect of such an act of naming? How do you think Monture, based on her argument in Standing Against Canadian Law, might respond to this call to employ the moral and legal language of genocide? What is your own position on this question?

Of interest: Andrew Woolford’s article on ‘Ontological Destruction’

Food for Thought 2:

Lisa Marie Jakubowski, in her chapter “‘Managing’ Canadian Immigration”, explores the explicitly racist history of Canadian immigration policy and the role of immigration law in perpetuating forms of systemic discrimination.

The 2010 MV Sun Sea incident represents a major ‘moment’ in recent Canadian immigration policy and politics.

Question: First, provide a brief description of the events surrounding the arrival of the MV Sun Sea. Then, briefly explain any shifts in immigration policy that followed from the incident (including policies and laws associeted with the issue of ‘irregular arrivals’). Finally, apply Jakubowski’s arguments to this case. Has the response to the MV Sun Sea incident represented a continuation of the pattern that Jakubowski describes?

Posts in response to these questions should be submitted before our next class.

Comments Off on Food for Thought: CLS, Racism, and Law

Filed under food for thought

Racial Profiling: Critical Race Theory and Michel Foucault

Alternative Food For Thought:
You may write a post that outlines three sections of your term paper – the description of your topic and the two analytical sections that explain the topic using your chosen approaches.
This gives you an opportunity to receive some additional feedback regarding key ideas from your term paper.

Instead of addressing the original blog, I chose to do the alternative food for thought question because I felt that this opportunity should not be missed. By doing this topic, I feel that Mike gets a glimpse of our papers and could provide us with his opinions and constructive criticism which will help us better our assignment before the due date.
My term paper will address the very debatable and controversial topic of racial profiling in the Canadian society (and a few comparisons to United States), with a particular focus towards law enforcement. Racial profiling has been prevalent in Canadian history and in modern day since many citizens observe this as an ongoing issue. Racial profiling is the act of a police officers singling out individuals from visible minorities and giving them the title of being criminal. I am narrowing down the victims of racial profiling by focusing mainly on two groups have been constantly targeted solely based on their appearance, Muslims post 9/11 and African-Canadians. There are few members of law enforcement that successfully acknowledge racial profiling to be a concerning and continuous issue, where a large number of them disregard the issue as whole. The society needs to come together to eliminate racial profiling in order to live peacefully without the fear of being victimized by those in whom we bestow trust and power.
The first theory I chose to use to address and analyze my topic is critical race theory. In my opinion, the critical race theory goes hand in hand with my topic after the class lecture on critical legal studies and the presentation on “Stop and Frisk Program” implemented by the New York Police Department. What is critical race theory, critical race theory examines the relationship between power, race, and law. Critical race theory is about race and confronting racism which seem to be deeply rooted in many aspects of Canadian and American society (Pavlich, 2011). According to the UCLA School of Public Affairs: “ Critical race theory recognizes that racism is engrained in… [North American] society. The power structures are based on white privilege and white supremacy, which perpetuates the marginalization of people of color”. In regards to race, theorists of critical race would suggest that racial profiling is responsible for reproducing unequal race relations (Pavlich, 2011).
The second theorist I will draw upon is Michel Foucault. Some concepts in Michel Foucault’s theory of power-knowledge which I want to and will apply are the notions of governmentality, power, and discipline in the context of the racial profiling of Africans and Arabs. From my understanding of Foucault’s work, would likely argue that “racial profiling is an expression of power” (Morrison, 2007). For Foucault, power is that which represses a class or individuals. Morrison states that “Racism is, for Foucault, necessary to the State: only with racism can state killing be justified, and only with racism can the State exercise its sovereign power” (2007). From this view racial profiling instead of criminal profiling is a demonstration of racism used by members of law enforcement to achieve a kind of “control” if you will, over society.

1 Comment

Filed under Musing

NYPD Stop & Frisk; Protected Ideology of the Elites

The Critical legal studies theory was an ideological movement stemming from the late 60’s movement of civil rights and anti-establishment (Pavlich, 2011, p.117). It viewed law as a political ideology which sustained itself by supporting interests of the group or class that created it. The legal system maintained the status quo which in turn depicted the enshrined hierarchy power relations and inequalities present in society. Law was virtually seen as a tool to oppress certain classes of people and maintain the elite in their positions within the social hierarchy. We can correlate such concepts to the NYPD stop and frisk program and witness such inequalities and social conflicts. A big component of classical critical legal studies rested on the concept of “alienation,” where certain individuals don’t have the ability of reach power and certain freedoms due to the powerful oppressing the less well off (Pavlich, 2011, p. 120). We can think of it as Caucasian supremacy, where interest of the elite are of more importance and the institutions and social structures that are in place embrace such power, which leads to social inequalities and racism. This applies to the stop and frisk program where minorities are the ones to be seemingly living under the economic alienation and thus are likely to be racially profiled. The program seems to come from the collection of beliefs and prejudices that embraces injustice with a mask of legitimacy. It is a tool to maintain the status quo and keep the powerful in their correct place within the social hierarchy.

The example with the sergeants who are in command depicted critical legal studies’ concept of how mainstream legal thought supports inequalities and racism. The commanders put pressure on their officers to do unreasonable things to meet quotas and even embraced a tone of violating rights. They normalized it. It stemmed from the top down (hierarchy). As a side effect, the pressure on officers lead to them to have no choice but to follow the status quo and lean towards oppressing certain classes of individuals and further the interest of the ruling class (privileged).

The only part of feminist jurisprudence and critical race theory that could correlate to the NYPD stop and frisk program is the agenda to have all people of gender, class and race equally valued (Pavlich, 2011, p. 125). The feminist agenda would be difficult to install within the NYPD program since the issues of class differences and race have developed overtime and established within the socio-capitalist societies. With pressure put on by an ideology (NYPD department), the police officers will develop their own perspective of who would looks suspicious depending on their own social upbringing as well. This in turn will most likely reflect mainstream society’s views and point the finger at those that are statistically likely to offend: minorities and the poor.

Consequently, although the law and the NYPD stop and frisk program is another tool masked to be proactive, it fails within itself as the ideology of the interest group that created it maintained the status quo of the elite. It separated trust and rapports from the citizens and police and lead to racial profiling. However, it does give us a view of how mainstream legal thought can depict social inequalities present within legal institutions and how certain established ideologies keep being protected.

References:

Pavlich, G. (2011). Law & Society Redefined. Don Mills, Ontario: Oxford University Press.

http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2012/10/15/nypds-stop-and-frisk-policy/

3 Comments

Filed under Musing

NYPD Stop-and-Frisk portrays racism

The NYPD stop-and-frisk program enables police officers to stop and search individuals who are out in public based on ‘suspicion’ without a warrant. These officers are supposed to meet a quota and a failure to do so can result in disciplinary action. The video “The Hunted and the Hated: An Inside Look at the NYPD’s Stop-and-Frisk Policy” shows the New York City Police Commissioner Ray Kelly stating that this program is a great program because the police are being proactive, and as a result the crime rate is decreasing. This program in the public’s eye appears legitimate however at the same time it creates tension surrounding the notion of race. This will be examined in this blog post by making reference to Critical Legal Studies and Critical Race Theory.

The main focus of the critical legal studies as stated by Pavlich (2011) in Law & Society Redefined “… is to explore the manner in which legal doctrine and legal education and the practices of legal institutions work to support a pervasive system of oppressive in egalitarian relations”. We discussed this in class and the idea that the law appears legitimate, even though it may not be, arose. This relates to the stop and frisk program as the aim of it is to reduce crime. Most individuals in the public would believe that having more cops on the street reduces crimes and it would result in safer communities. However, as stated on the New York Civil Liberties Unions page “No research has ever proven the effectiveness of [the program], and the small number of arrests, summonses, and guns recovered demonstrates that the practice is ineffective” (http://www.nyclu.org/node/1598). This page goes on to state that while violent crime fell 29% in New York from 2001 to 2010, many other cities had declines in crime as well without programs like this and at greater percentages, such as 59% in Los Angeles. This program may appear to work in the favour of the community yet it doesn’t as it reinforces the beliefs that certain individuals commit crimes and therefore they need to be stopped, which goes towards the next point of critical race theory.

The idea behind critical race theory is that law is responsible for producing unequal race relations. Therefore, as a result the law reproduces the notion of race. Critical race theorists would suggest that this program definitely reproduces the notion of race. In the video one of NYPD Veterans states that he had a captain who said “we’re going to go out there and we’re going to violate some rights”. This shows that even before the stop begins the officer has in his mind that he is going to target certain individuals. This causes more tension between racialized minorities and the police because the minorities feel targeted. It also produces tension within the community as the minorities will feel that it is unfair that they are subject to the majority of these stops while Whites for example were not subject to as many. In the article “An Analysis of the NYPD’s Stop-and-Frisk Policy in the Context of Claims of Racial Bias” Fagan et Al. (2006) note that “In total, Blacks and Hispanics represented 51% and 33% of the stops, respectively…” and more recently according to the video more than 87% were Black or Latino and 9/10 were innocent of any wrongdoing. As Matsuda (1993) notes one should not examine “racism as isolated instances of conscious bigoted decision making or prejudiced practice, but as larger, systemic, structural, and cultural, as deeply psychological and socially ingrained” (Pavlich, 2011). Through this process society has the belief that certain races commit more crimes, and as a result certain areas are targeted more. This is presented in the article by Fagan et al. (2006) as they state that “since ‘high crime areas’ often have high concentrations of minority citizens (Massey and Denton, 1993), this logic places minority neighborhoods at risk for elevating the suspiciousness of their residents”. I believe this is a crucial point to note as not only is an individual’s race of importance when an officer is thinking of stopping them but also the location they choose as well.

All of these factors mentioned above combined together lead to the communities increased perception that minorities commit the most crimes and therefore this program is good. However, I would question how effective these stops are and research has shown that they are not doing much and are rather more of a nuisance to specific minorities. However, one could state that they are making a difference as they eliminate some percentage, even though it is small, of crime that would otherwise go undetected. Personally, I feel that by having this program in place it is reinforcing the belief that minorities commit crime and this belief is held in the majority of the communities mind and as a result this makes individuals unknowingly have distorted opinions when it comes to who commits crimes. This cycle continues and minorities are targeted more and more, and when at a stop a minority is found to have something on them this reinforces the belief that it is the minorities who cause violence and the cycle repeats as it feeds into the public’s perception.

References

Fagan, J., Gelman, A., Kiss, A. (2006). An analysis of the NYPD’s stop-and-frisk policy in the context of claims of racial bias. Columbia Law School.

New York Civil Liberties Union. Racial Justice: Stop-and-Frisk Data. http://www.nyclu.org/node/1598

Pavlich, G. (2011). Law and Society Redefined. Ontario, Canada: Oxford

Tutle, Ross. (2012). “The Hunted and the Hated: An Inside Look at the NYPD’s Stop-and-Frisk Policy”. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=7rWtDMPaRD8#!

2 Comments

Filed under Musing