Rhetoric and the Police Reform Movement
For me and (I suspect) many others, the past year has felt like a digital coming-of-age. Instructional infographics have gone viral over social media, explaining everything from African American Vernacular English (AAVE) to “10 Things to Prioritize your Mental Health” to how to replace the police. Many of these are informative, providing valuable insight and statistics. But sometimes, to quickly sway public opinion, the rhetoric of these online movements proves harmful. In no way am I looking to attack the legitimacy of the police reform movement (I stand in full support of it); instead, I seek to question whether the phrases being used are the most effective way to seek change.
In particular, let’s focus on police reform. Undoubtedly, current police practices are racist: in the United States, Black people are three times more likely to be killed by police than white people, often with insufficient accountability. Whether it’s keeping an officer involved in a deadly shooting on the streets, punishing the use of powder cocaine and crack cocaine differently, or utilizing police unions to keep officers from facing consequences, it’s clear that the current system of policing leads to the abuse of power and needs reform.
Midway through 2020, following the death of George Floyd, social media activists turned to quick slogans, villainizing police officers to prove a point. We see it in Instagram bios, protest signs, and you hear it primarily in the voices of the young: “ACAB,” or “all cops are bastards.” When questioned, people are usually quick to explain: “it doesn’t actually mean every single cop is a bad cop.” Rather, their (valid!) argument is that the current system turns cops into agents of racism, and the issue is with the institution and culture itself. But in a world where the news is quick, people are hyper-polarized, and we come to our final opinion after reading a headline, this rhetoric is harmful.
The phrase “ACAB” itself criticizes the systematic racism implicit in American policing--a problem that is real and needs a remedy. However, I question whether or not attacking police officers themselves is the most prudent solution: the healthcare system is also racist, often misdiagnosing and mistreating patients of color, yet we don’t find ourselves attacking all doctors because we see the effort that doctors put into improving our lives. While the analogy is imperfect given the difference in training between the two occupations, police officers like those protecting the Capitol lay their lives on the line, a dedication that should be acknowledged.
In no way is the policing system in America remotely close to perfect, but it is still a necessary part of society. While we are sickened by the sight of police officers abusing their powers and upholding white supremacy, the fundamental role of the police is to preserve peace and security, and this is an important mission. It would be unrealistic to imagine a crimeless world, especially in America.
In the Capitol riots on January 6th, we saw the chaos that emerged from a lack of police force. Seeing that only a few police officers were standing between Confederate flags and the sanctity of American democracy was a sobering realization. For me, it made me question whether we can say “ACAB” (a phrase that attacks the cops and not the system) even while many of them do serve and protect to the best of their ability.
To reform the police, one of the main methods suggested was branded “Defund the police.” The idea behind “defunding the police” is to relocate funding to other services, such as social workers for mental health, addiction, and homelessness calls. Currently, police officers are asked to handle a whole host of calls, which leads to overworked police officers. Defunding the police to reduce officer workload could help increase the quality of care and safety for citizens.
In a discussion between police officers, one Detroit officer states that he agrees with the idea: “Detroit public schools are horrible, our housing is horrible, the mental facilities--awful. It could be a lot better and the money can go elsewhere if we can help our people before they get to the point where the police need to be involved.” In the same conversation, another police officer states, “I don’t know if I feel threatened by it, I just sort of feel pissed off when I hear it...if you defund the police, there’s no training.”
At this point, the importance of rhetoric is obvious: the second officer believes that after defunding, the police will no longer have the means to even train their officers. The misinterpretation points to the fact that although the slogan “defunding the police” spread quickly, the three-word phrase was taken at face value.
Though activists do not handpick the phrases that will reach the mainstream media (in this case, why not “reallocate police funds” or “reimagine the police”?), for those who use such rhetoric, it’s worth taking a moment to reconsider whether it helps the movement. In America, power comes in numbers. Here, those who need the most convincing will be the first to turn away at such strong language, deterred from looking into what the phrase entails in practice.
Already, some cities such as Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Baltimore have begun to re-allocate funding for projects centering the community, like recreational and trauma centers. On the other hand, many mayors do not believe in defunding the police, arguing that to change policing, actions besides “defunding” should be used. The approach of Mayor James Butts of California focuses on changes within the existing police structures, including changes to department culture.
To some extent, Mayor Butts is right: reallocating police funds is not the magic solution to police reform. Beyond funding, other changes like ending broken windows policing (over-policing minor crimes and mental health crises), ending for-profit policing, demilitarizing the police, and making more transparent police contracts or unions would help to decrease police brutality in America.
These smaller steps, backed by the “research-based policy solution platform” Campaign Zero, are expected to be backed by President Biden, specifically through demilitarization of local police and a commission to investigate the use of excessive force. Such changes are more likely to be put in place compared to defunding the police; this is not only because they are straightforward, but also because they are phrased less controversially.
Incendiary language is just that. A slogan as blatantly argumentative as “All cops are bastards” spreads so quickly because it’s short, it lays the blame quickly, and it moves you. It is easy to fall in and use the language because of how much you care; it’s almost satisfying. In the partisan world, though, such incendiary language is a weakness to the movement: Tucker Carlson shows this best when he claims that “‘Defund the police’ meant defund the police, cut off their salaries, get rid of them.”
There is no question that modern American policing has targeted Black people since its creation. For this, many of us are frustrated. But frustration will not solve the policing problem, and inflammatory language will drive people away. Instead, I urge everyone to stay critical when thinking about what we read and what we say, and above all, to keep pushing for change.
by JOCELYN HSIEH