The 1913 Women's Suffrage Procession: revitalizing the hope for female enfranchisement against all odds

Women suffragists at the head of the parade, marching down Pennsylvania Avenue, with the U.S. Capitol in background, on March 3, 1913. Courtesy of the Library of Congress.

BY: JACQUELINE QIU, WINTER 2021 COLLABORATOR AT POWER IN PLACE

On March 3, 1913, the Women’s Suffrage Procession manifested a new energy for the suffrage movement, paving the way for the landmark 19th amendment to be passed in Congress. A substantial procession of 8,000 marchers, 9 bands, 4 mounted brigades, and 20 floats gathered on Pennsylvania Avenue to march to the Treasury Building for an allegorical performance demanding necessity of female enfranchisement. Organized by the National American Woman Suffrage Association (NAWSA), this gathering of women demanding socio-political equality occurred on a strategic day in order to denounce the lack of female representation in the political sphere. These women marched on the same route that the new President, Woodrow Wilson, would undertake the very next day, March 4, en route to his presidential inauguration. The 1913 women’s suffrage procession was expertly planned in order to fall on this exact date, in the presence of lawmakers in Washington, D.C. The chairs of the NAWSA, Alice Paul and Lucy Burns, wished to send a provocative message that indicated a new chapter of resistance to gender-based disenfranchisement.

Cover of program for the National American Woman Suffrage Association procession, showing woman, in elaborate attire, with cape, blowing long horn, from which is draped a "votes for women" banner, on decorated horse, with U.S. Capitol in background. Courtesy of the Library of Congress.

““The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.” ”

A diverse group of women gathered in order to justly demand the passage of the Susan B. Anthony Amendment in Congress. Proposed in 1878, this amendment prohibited the denial of enfranchisement, based on gender, and thus exemplified the core philosophy of the women’s suffrage movement. However, this amendment had been stalled for the last 35 years; this reality would not be tolerated anymore by the dedicated suffragists. With elaborate floats, decor, and songs, this procession possessed the intent to make that bold statement in a concrete way. In fact, the procession was designed to present an argument for the validity of female enfranchisement; each section highlighted the distinct accomplishments of the respective participants. There were delegations from states, specific professions (like business or law), and universities. 

Inez Milholland rides Grey Dawn as the herald of the Woman Suffrage Procession, March 3, 1913

Harris & Ewing, photographer. Records of the National Woman's Party, Library of Congress

The first sight of the procession was Inez Milholland, dressed in white on top of a white horse named Grey Dawn, represented the ideal of female suffrage. As a prominent lawyer and activist, she represented the New Woman, whose voice would no longer be suppressed by patriarchal, electoral institutions. As the New Women of the 20th century, this generation of women rebelled against the establishment of societal expectations and challenged gender norms in various ways. From dress to behavior, a new wave of change was being realized during the 1913 Women’s Suffrage Procession. This next generation of women pursued female equality, not only in the political and legal sphere, but in all areas of existence. Feminism was on display, as each woman had a specific individual cause that they stood for, in addition to standing together in a collective mission for female enfranchisement while marching down the National Mall. 

“We demand an amendment to the Constitution of the United States enfranchising the women of this country.”

The "Great Demand" float in the Woman Suffrage Procession, March 3, 1913

Schlesinger Library, Radcliffe Institute, Harvard University

The first float, which held the message of the “Great Demand,” represented the newfound commitment and energy that was needed by the suffrage movement to actively achieve their goal. Suffragettes were no longer content with accepting limited voting rights in bits or in one state/jurisdiction; a nationwide enfranchisement was necessary. 

March 3, 1913 photo at the Suffrage Parade, showing marchers (left to right) Mrs. Russell McLennan, Mrs. Althea Taft, Mrs. Lew Bridges, Mrs. Richard Coke Burleson, Alberta Hill and Miss F. Ragsdale. Courtesy of the Library of Congress.

Marie Louise Bottineau-Baldwin.

Suffragettes of color were a prominent feature in the 1913 Women’s Suffrage Procession. More than 40 black women, with their specific state delegations, marched together for a future of political enfranchisement and equality. Leading banners from their sections, they encapsulated a conjoint end of racial justice with achieving the right to vote for women. There were even 25 black students from the Delta Sigma Theta sorority at Howard University, with as many as 6 graduates. Those women, with their respected academic regalia, included prominent suffragists such as Mary Church Terrell. Additionally, Marie Louise Bottineau-Baldwin, a famous Native American lawyer who advocated for the rights of her people with the Society of American Indians, marched in the procession. Her presence highlighted the relevant role of suffragists of color to re-energizing the women’s suffrage movement. White female suffragists did not only function as important contributors; women of color actively contributed to the health and vitality of this collective cause of suffrage.

Ida B. Wells-Burnett

However, the participation and advocacy of suffragists of color did not function without complications. For example, Ida B.Wells-Burnett, a prominent African American suffrage activist, was denied the opportunity to march at the front of the Illinois delegation like she had originally intended. It is important to remember that she, as a black woman, still faced more barriers to her activism than her white counterparts, who as organizers of this procession relegated her to march at the back of the Illinois delegation. However, Wells-Burnett refused to let the color of her skin dictate the depth of her role in advocating for women's suffrage; eventually, she found a way to march at the front of her delegation. The efforts of Ida B. Wells-Burnett serve as a reminder that racial justice is a conjoint end with women’s suffrage, occupying the same status of importance.

Part of the 1913 Suffrage Parade. The signs read "In The Home,” and "Homemakers.” Courtesy of the Library of Congress.

The women’s suffrage procession seemed to have all the components to be successful, but faced unprecedented obstacles. A crowd of 250,000 people, mainly men who arrived in the nation’s capital for the presidential inauguration, formed a physical barrier against the marching procession of women. These spectators blocked the parade route, accosting the women in the street and stopping their forward movement. A physical confrontation resulted within the parade, as the crowd sought to advance their own agenda at the expense of this tightly organized procession of women. Even though the participants on horseback sought to block these individuals, the sheer number of spectators disrupted the women’s march to their destination, the Treasury building. In fact, a sea of hostile, jeering men shouted rude, explicit insults at the women. Harassment, cat-calling, and sexual propositions flew in the face of each woman in the parade as they persisted onward.

The crowd converges on marchers, blocking the parade route during March 3, 1913, suffrage procession, in Washington, District of Columbia. Courtesy of Library of Congress.

Yet, the bravery of these women was evident, as many continued on in the face of the vile opposition of the surrounding crowd. Even with tears, and psychological hurt, they persisted without interruption or hesitation. Some even carried banner poles, flags, and hat pins to ward off the attack. Physical unrest was a challenge that would be overcome together, with a collective effort. It was in fact necessary to assert their independent voices, and defend their bodies, when the Capitol Police was unable, or unwilling, to intervene. It was only until U.S. army troops entered the crowd that the spectators disappeared from harassing these women. En route to demanding their right to vote, it is telling that these female participants also had to, in an autonomous manner, affirm their own safety against an opposition that was threatened by their willingness to break traditional patriarchal norms. For these women, giving up was not an option, as there was too much at stake in their quest for socio-political equality.

The crowd surrounds and slows a Red Cross ambulance during the Women's suffrage procession, on March 3, 1913. Dozens of marchers were injured during the march, shoved and tripped by spectators. Courtesy of the Library of Congress.

The women’s suffrage procession on March 3, 1913, made notable headlines in newspapers around the country. The disruptive unrest of the crowd yielded 100 participants that were eventually hospitalized as a consequence of their involvement in the parade. Therefore, as the public deemed it unfathomable that the police did nothing to stop the blatant disruption of the ongoing procession, scandal ensued. An investigation of the ineffectiveness of the Capitol police commenced in the following days, resulting in the firing of the Washington, D.C. superintendent of police. It is clear that the police did not value this procession, which was threatened by disruptive crowds, as a cause worth protecting.The women of the NAWSA took a stand for themselves, in the face of substantial resistance to their efforts, and did not back down.

Tableau presented by the Women's Suffrage Association, on the U.S. Treasury building steps, on March 3, 1913. Courtesy of Library of Congress.

The women’s suffrage procession garnered more attention than the events of the next day, the presidential inauguration. On the same steps of the suffragists occupied, President Wilson was seemingly an afterthought in the shadow of the previous events. The suffragettes, who even suffered injuries to march against the physical barrier of the spectators, took center stage. The procession of these bold suffragettes renewed energy and public attention to their cause of pursuing and realizing the passage of the Susan B. Anthony Amendment and the “Great Demand.” The suffrage movement needed this jolt of energy in order to affirm greater vitality and vigor in its character. This reinvigoration of the suffrage movement thus created powerful momentum, as in the next 7 years, the right to vote for women would be concretely realized in the political and legal sphere. The 19th amendment benefited from the events of March 3, 1913; a newfound spirit that fought for gender egalitarianism in enfranchisement manifested in the actions of these brave women. The women marching in the 1913 procession unequivocally valued a future where the next generations of women would experience socio-political equality.

References: 

1. Taylor, Alan. “The 1913 Women’s Suffrage Parade.” The Atlantic. March 1, 2013. https://www.theatlantic.com/photo/2013/03/100-years-ago-the-1913-womens-suffrage-parade/100465/ 

2. “1913 Woman Suffrage Procession.” U.S. National Park Service. 2020. https://www.nps.gov/articles/woman-suffrage-procession1913.htm 

Jacqueline Qiu is a junior at Middlebury College, double majoring in French and Political Science. She is passionate about humanitarianism, women in politics, mental health awareness and advocacy, and French language and literature. On campus, she is the Co-President of the French club and Active Minds Middlebury

Why speak out in the face of insurmountable challenges?

“ “The ultimate tragedy is not the oppression and cruelty by the bad people but the silence over that by the good people.”
- Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. ”

BY: JACQUELINE QIU, WINTER 2021 COLLABORATOR AT POWER AND PLACE

Speaking out against the injustices of the world is an example of high moral integrity in a human being. For these women who advocated for the suffragette cause, in the 19th & 20th centuries, their status, credibility, and words would be questioned in their contemporary society. However, the potential of being ostracized by societal institutions did not stop them from speaking our from structural inequities. These women did not let their voices be silenced in the welfare of female generations in the past, present, and future.

““As much as white women need the ballot, colored women need it more.”
(Closing remarks at the 1873 Convention of the American Woman Suffrage Association in New York) ”

Frances Ellen Watkins Harper

- Frances Ellen Watkins Harper (1825-1911), an African American writer, poet, and suffragette who popularized gender and racial equality through her poetry, short stories, and widely circulated writings.

““Peaceful revolutions are slow but sure. It takes time to leaven a great unwieldy mass like this nation with the leavening ideas of justice and liberty, but evolution is all the more certain in its results because it is so slow.” ”

Susette La Flesche Tibbles (“Bright Eyes”) circa 1880s. Courtesy of the Nebraska State Historical Society.

- Susette La Flesche Tibbles (“Bright Eyes”) (1854-1903), a Native American activist and suffragette who represented Native American rights against U.S. Federal Policy and viewed women’s suffrage as a conjoint end.

““When the ballot is put into the hands of the American woman, the world is going to get a correct estimate of the Negro woman. It will find her a tower of strength of which poets have never sung, orators have never spoken, and scholars have never written.””

Nannie Helen Burroughs.

- Nannie Helen Burroughs (1879-1961), an African American suffragette who established the Women’s Convention, as a church branch of the National Baptists Convention, that was the largest body of African American women in the U.S. and opened the National Training School of Women and Girls for poor, working class African American women.

““Educate a woman and you educate a family.””

Jovita Idár (middle) in the print shop of El Progreso, 1914.

- Jovita Idár (1885-1946), a Latina journalist, suffragist, and activist who advocated for the plight of Mexican Americans in Texas as well as the socio-political equality of Mexican American women in obtaining the right to vote.

““We are justified in believing that the success of this movement for equality of the sexes means more progress toward equality of the races.””

Josephine St. Pierre Ruffin

- Josephine St. Pierre Ruffin (1842-1924) a prominent African American journalist and suffragette who formed the Massachusetts Suffrage Association in 1875 and urged black women to participate in politics through her writings in her own newsletter, The Women’s Era.

“If white American women, with all their natural and acquired advantages, need the ballot, that right protective of all other rights; if Anglo Saxons have been helped by it … how much more do Black Americans, male and female, need the strong defense of a vote to help secure them their right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?” ”

Adella Hunt Logan, 1902.

- Adella Hunt Logan (1863-1915), a professor at Tuskegee Institute, which was headed by Booker T. Washington, and major contributor to the philosophy of the black women’s suffrage movement by combining white suffrage rationale with the necessity of obtaining the right to vote for black women.

References: 

1. Wicker, Jewel. “16 Best Quotes About Women of Color Deserving the Right to Vote.” Teen Vogue. 2020. https://www.teenvogue.com/story/best-quotes-women-right-to-vote 

2. Gomez, Skylar. “12 African American Suffragists who shouldn’t be overlooked.” Literary Ladies Guide. 2019. https://www.literaryladiesguide.com/other-rad-voices/12-african-american-suffragists/  

Jacqueline Qiu is a junior at Middlebury College, double majoring in French and Political Science. She is passionate about humanitarianism, women in politics, mental health awareness and advocacy, and French language and literature. On campus, she is the Co-President of the French club and Active Minds Middlebury.

American Abortion Access in the Time of a Pandemic

Photograph by Glenna Gordon for CNN.

BY: SOPHIE LOVERING, SUMMER 2020 COLLABORATOR AT POWER IN PLACE

About one quarter of all American women will use abortion services by the age of 45 [1]. Access to safe abortions is a human right; the ability to determine whether and when to have a child has significant implications for the economic, social, and political equality of women [1]. Despite its essential nature, the right to receive an abortion has faced new restrictions in the age of COVID-19.

Many individuals are arguing to end abortion services during the pandemic, but these arguments do not stem from the desire for safety. Rather, they serve as a continuation of the long-standing debate concerning the morality of abortion. According to Reproductive BioMedicine Online, some argue that reproductive healthcare services interfere with hospital resources that should instead be going to COVID-19 patients in critical condition [2]. Others argue that providing reproductive healthcare services is not consistent with social distancing [2]. Both of these arguments are misguided. Most reproductive healthcare occurs in an “ambulatory setting,” and thus does not take away from the care of hospitalized COVID-19 patients [2]. Delaying reproductive healthcare might actually increase the demand for hospital resources, as pregnancies resulting in termination at later stages face significantly higher risks of complications [2]. Additionally, reproductive healthcare settings are taking steps to mitigate the risk of contagion by offering telemedicine, enhanced hygiene protocols, and infection screening prior to appointments [2]. Like all medical environments, practices providing reproductive healthcare are effectively minimizing the risk of infection and ensuring maximum possible social distancing [2]. These truths have not prevented the restriction of abortion access, however. Governors in Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Oklahoma have supported the cessation of both medication and surgical abortion, using a much more insidious argument: that abortion procedures are “elective” or “nonessential” [1].

The restriction of abortion care is always negative, but is particularly dangerous during this pandemic. The classification of abortions as “elective” suggests that women’s equality and autonomy is expendable [1]. It also implicitly questions a woman’s judgement to make decisions concerning her own body. In medicine, an “elective procedure” is one that can be delayed without consequences [1]. Considering the increasing risks associated with delaying abortion, and maximum limits on the gestational age at which an abortion may be performed legally, abortion is in no way “elective,” and classifying it as such will mean that “many women will be unable to obtain an abortion at all” [1]. During the COVID-19 pandemic, this might mean that families will face the undue financial burden of an additional child, or that women will face an unplanned pregnancy resulting from intimate partner violence, which has increased as a result of quarantine orders [1]. 

Restricted access to abortion care is particularly harmful to women of color. Many women of color already experience limited access to abortion [3]. Women of color face income inequality, which means that they are more likely to be covered by Medicaid and in turn impacted by the Hyde Amendment, which bands federal funds for abortion care in Medicaid [3]. Women of color also face explicit racism; anti-choice organizations have targeted Black and Latina women with the false rhetoric that they devalue human life, even in the womb [3]. Restricting abortion access, which is already restricted to women of color, as a result of this pandemic, which also disproportionately impacts people of color, will significantly harm minority American populations.

We cannot sit idly by while women, and especially women of color, watch their rights fade away. Abortion is undeniably an essential healthcare service. Those who argue that the COVID-19 pandemic warrants restricted reproductive healthcare are either misguided or ill-intentioned. 

References

[1] Bayefsky, Michelle J., Deborah Bartz, and Katie L. Watson. “Abortion during the Covid-19 Pandemic—Ensuring Access to an Essential Health Service.” New England Journal of Medicine (2020): 382. Doi: 10.1056/NEJMp2008006. 

[2] Kushnir, Vitaly A., Banafsheh Kashani, and Eli Y. Adashi. “Reproductive healthcare during a pandemic: a New York state of mind.” Reproductive BioMedicine Online (2020). Doi: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2020.06.005. 

[3] Mhatre, Nikita. “Abortion Restrictions Hurt Women of Color.” National Partnership for Women and Families. April 25, 2019. https://www.nationalpartnership.org/our-impact/blog/general/abortion-restrictions-hurt-women-of-color.html.

---

Sophie Lovering is a rising junior at the University of Pennsylvania majoring in Philosophy, Politics, and Economics (PPE) and minoring in American Sign Language and Deaf Studies. She is involved in the Penn Undergraduate Law Journal, Penn Special Olympics, Penn's Beyond Arrests: Re-Thinking Systematic Oppression, and Penn Women's Rowing. She is interested in criminal justice reform and social justice advocacy.

Qualified Immunity: Why do we care so much about protecting police and so little about victims of civil rights violations?

Photograph by Lucas Jackson/ Reuters via Washington Post.

BY: PAIGE REDDINGTON, SUMMER 2020 COLLABORATOR AT POWER IN PLACE

Have you ever wondered why police are able to get away with firing a weapon with no consequences in response to mild situations? Why these instances are rarely brought to light, or not tried in court against officers? What specifically protects police officers in these instances, and allows them to frequently abuse their power? It is more than just inherent bias and institutional racism within the justice system—there are specific rights in place protecting police officers, which allow them to frequently act in accordance with their racism and bias, without facing adequate consequences. Meet qualified immunity, a doctrine inherently defending police officers’ decisions, often regardless of what the decision is. 

Qualified immunity is a legal doctrine which protects police officers from having legal action taken against them. This doctrine responds to section 1983 of federal law which states the right to sue officials who have violated constitutional rights [1]. The purpose of qualified immunity is to balance public officials’ power so that they cannot take advantage of their power while performing their duties, but at the same time protect them from being held liable when they need to make essential decisions in order to perform their job [2]. This doctrine stands regardless of the violation of someone’s civil rights. The only exception to this protection of police officers is if their action violates “clearly established” law.  In order to decide if the action violates a “clearly established” right, courts question if a “reasonable official” would think that the defendant’s action violated the victim’s rights, applying law in effect at time of the incident, rather than current law at the time of the court’s consideration. If the action is not deemed as a violation of “clearly established” law, then the victim is unable to take the officer to court to try them [3].

The present-day ideals of qualified immunity were established in the case of Harlow v. Fitzgerald (1982). In Harlow, rather than previously examining the officer’s “subjective good faith,” they decided to use the standard of “clearly established” law, which was defined as actions that “violate[d] clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” This change did increase protection for police officers, but also, as claimed by the court, steadfastly prevented police from acting in an unruly or exploitative way.

However, this raises several issues that prevent victims from obtaining justice. Victims whose civil rights have been violated in new, unique ways that have not previously been tried in court are unable to bring the violation to court, since the court needs victims to indicate a past, similar ruling that demonstrates the current violation as “clearly established.” As a result, even if this new violation becomes a repeated issue, it remains unqualified to be tried in court. This specifically sets up the legal system so that justice can never be served in new cases of violations with public officials, and, as a result, prevents and discourages victims from attempting to defend their rights. 

In Pearson v. Callahan (2009), the court ruled that, when considering a case, only the “clearly established” qualification must apply, when previously in 2001, it was decided that first the court should consider if the conduct infringes on a constitutional right, and second if it is clearly established. Now even if conduct infringes on someone’s constitutional rights, if it has not been taken to court previously, it is not considered clearly established and cannot be tried in court. Another obstacle the “clearly established” qualification brings stems from the definition of a “reasonable officer.” In 1986, the court decided that the situation must now be judged by “any reasonable officer” in order to be “clearly established.” According to Harvard Law professor Scott Michelman, this means that the action must be so clearly wrong that any officer—even the “least reasonable officer”—must recognize it as a violation. 

Many victims do not even attempt to bring their case to court, because there likely has not been a prior court case similar to their case, since qualified immunity was established in 1982. It creates obstacles for victims attempting to achieve justice, to the point where striving to take legal action has too many steps and costs, causing excessive effort, depletion of financial resources, and overall exhaustion. These costs of just attempting to achieve justice in the legal system outweigh the benefits of actually achieving a positive outcome, especially when the odds that victims can even bring their case to court is so low. Victims may not have the legal resources to research and discover whether their case is “clearly established” or know how to defend that it is “clearly established,” since this doctrine is so specific and rooted in legal history.

Supporters of qualified immunity argue that this doctrine is essential for police officers as it allows them to make instantaneous decisions when their duty calls for it, such as in life or death situations [4]. Supporters also claim that police officers would be responsible for a large sum of legal expenses every time legal action is taken against them, and the exhaustion that these cases would bring to police officers would detract from the attention they bring to their actual duties of handling important public issues. The Supreme Court argues that few people would decide to go into positions of governmental office if they did not have protections like qualified immunity. Essentially, the Supreme Court contends that you cannot take legal action against police officers if they were not aware of the law at the time of the violation—hence, the “clearly established” law distinction.

However, the reality is that very few qualified immunity cases actually involve these life or death situations where the officer was acting out of necessity. The Cato Institute reported that the Supreme Court is in the process of reviewing eight various cert petitions involving qualified immunity, yet the “overwhelming majority” of these petitions do not demonstrate any direct harm to the officer where they would need to make instantaneous decisions for their own protection. Justice Clarence Thomas, an originalist, criticized that qualified immunity has been used to exercise “free-wheeling policy choices” which the court does not have the power to actually make. Qualified immunity even stunts the ability for constitutional law to develop over time, as important cases are unable to be tried because they are not qualified as clearly established—this is particularly important as new innovations and technologies advance over time, raising new questions that remain unaddressed due to this doctrine.

The qualified immunity doctrine does not even rid police officers of the financial burden of legal expenses. UCLA law professor Joanna Schwartz reports that police officers only bore 0.2% of the burden of expenses, due to police indemnification. As a result, officers’ financial costs rarely come out of their own money. Meanwhile, many victims are discouraged from even attempting to bring a case to court, because of its exhaustion of resources with a small chance of positive outcome. Even though in 1976 Congress allowed lawyers representing victims of civil rights violations to recover, this is not applicable in cases that have been denied due to qualified immunity. As a result, many victims are unable to even find lawyers to represent and fight for them in the first place.

While the elimination of this doctrine could discourage people from becoming police officers, it is more likely to discourage people who want to abuse their power from becoming police officers. Qualified immunity reinforces what Justice Sonia Sotomayer refers to as a “shoot first and think later” mentality, which involves being less concerned with the consequences of firing a weapon. The removal of qualified immunity would not ensure that victims win cases against police officers. Rather than discouraging and preventing victims from obtaining justice, the removal of qualified immunity would simply allow them a trial in court, and discourage officers from abusing their power due to the increased  likelihood of consequences. The removal of qualified immunity would eliminate just one of the many obstacles for victims of police brutality on the path to fighting injustice. 

On June 4, the Supreme Court reviewed a number of petitions involving qualified immunity, but it took a pass on resolving qualified immunity for the time being, due to less than four votes agreeing to come back to it then. This now puts the issue in Congress’s hands [5]. Recently, Representatives Justin Amash and Ayanna Pressley have proposed an Ending Qualified Immunity Act, which calls to make additions to section 1983 in order to limit the amount of immunity granted to officials, discouraging them from unfairly exercising their power [6]. Senator Cory Booker has also proposed a framework for police reform that would rectify qualified immunity [7]. If you are wondering what can be done in the meantime, you can sign a number of online petitions calling for the end of qualified immunity, spread information about qualified immunity to family and friends, or, if you have the financial means, donate to organizations working to end qualified immunity, like the Institute for Justice.

Resources:

Donate to Institute for Justice

End Qualified Immunity Petition

Qualified Immunity Needs Legislative Reform Petition

Congress: Qualified Immunity Petition

Rep. Ayanna Pressley and Justin Amash’s End Qualified Immunity Act

Chair Bass, Sen. Booker and Harris, and Chair Nadler’s Justice in Policing Act of 2020

Sen. Mike Braun’s Qualified Immunity Reform Act

References

[1] Leef, George. “Qualified Immunity -- A Rootless Doctrine The Court Should Jettison.” Forbes. Last modified March 21, 2018. Accessed June 23, 2020. https://www.forbes.com/sites/georgeleef/2018/03/21/qualified-immunity-a-rootless-doctrine-the-court-should-jettison/#3692c38231c7

 [2] “Qualified immunity.” Legal Information Institute. Accessed June 23, 2020. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/qualified_immunity#:~:text=Pearson%20v.%20Callahan%20.,established%E2%80%9D%20statutory%20or%20constitutional%20right.

[3] Sobel, Nathaniel. “What Is Qualified Immunity, and What Does It Have to Do With Police Reform?” Lawfare. Last modified June 6, 2020. Accessed June 23, 2020. https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-qualified-immunity-and-what-does-it-have-do-police-reform

[4] Sibilla, Nick. “New Bill Would Abolish Qualified Immunity, Make It Easier To Sue Cops Who Violate Civil Rights.” Forbes. Last modified June 3, 2020. Accessed June 23, 2020. https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicksibilla/2020/06/03/new-bill-would-abolish-qualified-immunity-make-it-easier-to-sue-cops-who-violate-civil-rights/#8d2cd096fbc9

[5] Dwyer, Devin. “Supreme Court won’t revisit qualified immunity for police, leaving it to Congress.” ABC News. Last modified June 22, 2020. Accessed June 23, 2020. https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/supreme-court-wont-revisit-qualified-immunity-police-leaving/story?id=71374240

[6] “Reps. Pressley, Amash introduce bipartisan legislation to end qualified immunity.” U.S. Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley. Last modified June 4, 2020. Accessed June 23, 2020. https://pressley.house.gov/media/press-releases/reps-pressley-amash-introduce-bipartisan-legislation-end-qualified-immunity

[7] Silva, Christianna. “Cory Booker Wants To End Qualified Immunity For Police Officers.” NPR. Last modified June 7, 2020. Accessed June 23, 2020. https://www.npr.org/sections/live-updates-protests-for-racial-justice/2020/06/07/871713872/cory-booker-wants-to-end-qualified-immunity-for-police-officers

---

Paige Reddington is a rising senior at Amherst College majoring in English. She is an Arts and Living Writer for the campus newspaper The Amherst Student, a staff editor for the commentary magazine The Indicator, a member of the Reproductive Justice Alliance, and runs cross country and track for Amherst. Her interests include writing, social justice, and intersectionality.

Read The Signs

“Black Lives Matter” protesters in front of Borough Hall on June 8, 2020 in New York City. Photograph by Angela Weiss/AFP/Getty Images.

BY: HALEY GLOVER, SUMMER 2020 COLLABORATOR AT POWER IN PLACE

Getty Images VIA Cosmopolitan.

We have asked for change in Ferguson, Baltimore, and Minneapolis. We have protested the systemic injustices of the government we live our lives by. Yet every new wave of protests highlights the American system’s cyclicality that repeatedly condemns rage, specifically Black rage, and instead legislates complicity. Politicians routinely disqualify protests and instead call for votes for change. However, today’s revival of the Black Lives Matter movement demonstrates the failure of traditional modes of legislation, such as voting, for Black citizens. One of the founders of the BLM movement, Alicia Garza, identified similar systemic flaws in the beginning of the movement stating, “What we’ve seen is an attempt by mainstream politics and politicians to co-opt movements that galvanize people in order for them to move closer to their own goals and objectives. . . . We don’t think that playing a corrupt game is going to bring change and make Black lives matter” [1]. Every protest shut down, condemned as a riot, or transformed into the political campaign of a politician is the “corrupt game” in action. It is systemic silencing of Black voices and is an attempt to dilute the energy of the BLM movement. 

Since 2013, when the movement began, legislative flaws have survived numerous reforms and are reflected today in calls for “law & order” [2] and the dismantling of organized protests across the U.S. through state National Guard deployment. In response to these efforts by elected officials to turn peaceful protests violent, the BLM movement's resilience and determination to protest will be vital in beginning to make the institutional changes necessary until the Black political voice is heard on Capitol Hill. While voting is a start, it is not a guarantee for change when the very system of voter registration is flawed across America. In commenting on past BLM protests in Ferguson, historian Dr. Barbara Ransby speaks on the “dead-end” results of traditional modes of legislation stating, “Organizers have already experienced the dead-end political results when social movements working in marginalized communities forfeit their agency and simply deliver votes to politicians without a strategy or a plan for ensuring accountability” [1]. Such results have silenced the black voice in the past and will continue to mute the marginalized if the momentum of protests slow. Such momentum makes headlines and amasses followers who are essential in making the grassroots initiatives necessary to work toward change from the inside out. Protest is the starting point because political participation relies on feelings of political efficacy within citizens, particularly Black citizens. Through cultural restrictions and institutional hindrances in education, law enforcement, and voter registration, the Black American’s participation in politics has been seriously limited [3]. In the face of these restrictions, protest has emerged as one of the Black American’s few means of political participation that in its purest form is not tied to the system; a system that has actively worked to decrease the Black individual’s sense of effectiveness in not only politics but everyday life [3].

Kyle Robertson/ The Columbus Dispatch via AP.

White supremacy in modern day America is reflected in the systemic silencing of Black citizens. Whether it is the criminalization of Black political participation or the interpretation of protests and rallies as violent riots, America’s collective imagination has been conditioned to flinch at shouts for justice and resist any disruption to the foundations of the country. A country that Congresswoman Joyce Beatty reminds us is rooted in the oppression of Black Americans. Beatty tweeted late last month: “The history & trauma of racism and Jim Crow is not a memory of the past, but is a reality still today, reinforced by the fact that Black Americans are disproportionately the targets of injustices ranging from mass incarceration & police brutality, to the War on Drugs & COVID-19” [4]. Shortly after tweeting this, U.S. Representative Beatty took her words from Twitter to protests in downtown Columbus where she was maced by police officers after attempting to subdue an altercation [5].

Kyle Robertson/The Columbus Dispatch via Twitter.

In choosing to participate in protests, Congresswoman Beatty removed the veil between a government and its people. Actively protesting the system she operates within, Beatty’s action is one of the first steps towards increasing black political engagement in America. Scholars John Pierce and Addison Carey describe the degree of black political efficacy stating, “The degree to which the black citizen feels he can influence political decisions is linked to… the response he receives when he attempts to gain access to the participation channels of the system” [3]. Beatty is actively opening up these channels using the route of protest. As a black woman first and politician second, Beatty protests the racist institutional arrangement she is involved in. In response to the system’s failure in the wrongful death of George Floyd, Beatty tweeted: “America is watching. Where is the justice? How do we heal from the past memories of racial terror and lynchings when they are still alive today? I support peaceful protests for change, action and a path to restorative justice because now more than ever is a time of urgency” [6]. Beatty reminds us that the moment is here. It is time for the restoration of a system that devalues black voice and life. In protest, voices are amplified over the noise of the system and can be instrumental in increasing Black political efficacy. I ask everyone to read the signs of racial injustice in America and continue to march until the slogan “Black Lives Matter” is reflected not only in the actions of politicians, but in the American political system as a whole. Rep. Beatty pursues this constructive form of political engagement through protest as she marches toward justice and fundamental change. I’m following her.

References

[1] Ransby, Barbara. "Black Rage and Blacks in Power: Baltimore and Electoral Politics." In Making All Black Lives Matter: Reimagining Freedom in the Twenty-First Century, 81-95. Oakland, California: University of California Press, 2018. Accessed June 18, 2020. www.jstor.org/stable/2783927.

[2] Trump, Donald. Twitter post. June 15, 2020, 10:19 a.m. https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1272534307303755776?s=20 

[3] Pierce, John C., and Addison Carey. "Efficacy and Participation: A Study of Black Political Behavior." Journal of Black Studies 2, no. 2 (1971): 201-23. www.jstor.org/stable/2783927.

[4] Beatty, Joyce. Twitter post. May 29, 2020, 12:31 a.m. https://twitter.com/RepBeatty/status/1266225506803945472?s=20 

[5] Mena, Kelly. “African-American congresswoman gets pepper sprayed during George Floyd protest in Columbus.” CNN, May 31, 2020. Accessed June 18, 2020. https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/30/politics/joyce-beatty-ohio-pepper-sprayed-columbus-protest/index.html

[6] Beatty, Joyce. Twitter post. May 29, 2020, 12:32 a.m. https://twitter.com/RepBeatty/status/1266225969628667904?s=20 

Godfrey, Elaine. “The Congresswoman Pepper-Sprayed by Police.” The Atlantic, May 31, 2020. Accessed June 18, 2020. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/05/congresswoman-pepper-sprayed-joyce-beatty/612436/

Note from author: Haley is always listening to other voices and acknowledging her whiteness when writing on the Black Lives Matter movement and is always open to further discussions or edits on any of the material discussed above. Thank you. 

---

Haley is a senior at Middlebury College. She is majoring in English and Political Science. On campus she works as the president of the MiddLaw club where she helps students gather resources for careers in law. Haley is from Ohio and is particularly interested in the political climate of the Midwest and legislative reform.

No Environmental Justice, No Peace

BY: LYDIA WIENER, SUMMER 2020 COLLABORATOR AT POWER IN PLACE

Millions across the globe have taken to the streets and opened their minds (and wallets) to combat the systemic racism that has historically plagued Black and Brown communities. Outraged, and rightfully so, over the wrongful deaths of George Floyd and the many before him while in police custody, protestors have championed the phrase “No Justice, No Peace,” indicating that unrest will not cease until Floyd’s killers are convicted and major police reform is made. The Black Lives Matter organization has spearheaded this movement by demanding police budgets be cut, demilitarized, and the resulting money be invested into marginalized communities. But police brutality is merely one symptom of foundational racism. The meta mantra “No Justice, No Peace” calls for environmental justice, education justice, economic justice, and everything in between.

The Environmental Protection Agency defines environmental justice as “the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income, with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulation, and policies,” calling into question the blatant environmental inequities faced by Black and Brown communities in the US and around the world since the colonial era [1]. Colonial discourse, canonized by Edward Said’s book Orientalism, framed white men and the Western world as the picture of progress, civility, and rationality, while people of color and the global East were framed as the barbaric, savage, primitive, “other” [2]. This mentality, paired with lingering sentiment from the 1800s movement to preserve American wilderness (which was largely a response to immigration and the emancipation of slaves), culminated in the Wilderness Act of 1964—a racially charged foundation to the “golden era” of environmental legislation. Section 2c of the Wilderness Act prescribed “a wilderness, in contrast with those areas where man and his own works dominate the landscape, is hereby recognized as an area where earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain,” turning wilderness into a racialized “purification machine” where Native American and Black communities were evicted from their residential lands [3].

These Black and Brown communities were relocated to vulnerable, degraded, and largely unwanted lands. Whether it be lands geographically predisposed to bear the forefront of climate burdens (think the Lower Ninth Ward during Hurricane Katrina), or lands that are riddled with calculated placements of locally unwanted land-uses such as landfills, superfund sites, and highways (think the Warren County PCB Landfill circa 1982), these Black and Brown communities face intensified health, economic, and development vulnerabilities not experienced by their white counterparts, reinforcing the historical cycle of disenfranchisement and oppression. 

It’s no wonder why the collective memories of Black communities hold ambivalent connections to wildlands. Prior to the civil rights movement, wildlands provided spaces for escaped slaves to develop medicinal practices with plants, perform spiritual practices, form resistance movements, and feed families, while also serving as grounds for rapes and beatings. Over time, this relationship only became more convoluted as imposed restrictions on historical and cultural lands encouraged an influx of wealthy, white visitors, skewing local understandings of sense of place associated with those spaces and causing many Blacks to feel alienated and unsafe. Just this past Memorial Day, white New York City resident Amy Cooper highlighted the manufactured doubts surrounding the place of the Black body in the natural space when she reported and threatened Christian Cooper, a Black birdwatcher and board member of the New York City Audubon Society, to the police. 

Carolyn Finney, an environmental justice scholar, author, and activist who has been targeted by unsettling racial perceptions herself, calls on predominantly white-led environmental organizations and academic institutions to “recognize that systemic racism exists on both the streets of our cities and inside our national parks” [4]. According to Finney, there needs to be “full representation at every level in the environmental sector,” including reparations for disproportionately impacted Black and Brown communities, to induce “fundamental, consequential, and absolute change.”

The Black Lives Matter movement and activists like Finney are forcing whitewashed America to grapple with its place in building this racist and oppressive system, and pushing the environmental movement to reassess its mission as well. Within the last month, paramount climate change activism and advocacy groups such as the Natural Resources Defense Council, 350.org, and the Sierra Club have publicly pledged to support Black-led justice initiatives, build inclusive, multiracial climate coalitions, and divest from systems of white supremacy. During a Black-led 350.org webinar on dismantling racism in the climate movement, Executive Director of Minnesota 350, Sam Grant, implores listeners to “live at the intersection of abolition and ending climate apartheid” [5].

References

[1] OP US EPA, “Environmental Justice,” Collections and Lists, US EPA, November 3, 2014, https://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice.

[2] Edward W. Said, Orientalism, 1st Vintage Books ed (New York: Vintage Books, 1979).

[3] Janae Davis, “Black Faces, Black Spaces: Rethinking African American Underrepresentation in Wildland Spaces and Outdoor Recreation:,” Environment and Planning E: Nature and Space, December 14, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1177/2514848618817480.

[4] Carolyn Finney, “The Perils of Being Black in Public: We Are All Christian Cooper and George Floyd | Race | The Guardian,” accessed June 15, 2020, https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jun/03/being-black-public-spaces-outdoors-perils-christian-cooper.

[5] “Pledge to Act in Defense of Black Lives,” 350.org, accessed June 15, 2020, https://350.org/in-defense-of-black-lives/.

---

Lydia Wiener is a recent graduate of Middlebury College , where she majored in Environmental Policy and minored in Geography and African Studies. She is fascinated with the social, economic, and political nexus that underscores environmental issues, and is committed to creating equitable environmental change.

Drug Laws, Racism, and Women

Illustration by Vidushi Yadav for the Association for Women’s Rights in Development.

BY: SOPHIE LOVERING, SUMMER 2020 COLLABORATOR AT POWER IN PLACE

Black Americans account for 30 percent of all drug-related arrests, even though only 12.5 percent of substance users are black [1]. Black and white Americans use substances at equal rates; however, black Americans are about six times more likely to be incarcerated for drug-related offenses than their white peers [1]. In court, prosecutors are twice as likely to pursue mandatory minimum sentences for black defendants than white defendants, and black defendants are less likely to evade these mandatory minimums [1]. 

In 1971, President Richard Nixon established the war on drugs, which in turn increased sentencing and enforcement actions for low-level drug offenses [1]. 15 years after Nixon’s presidency, Congress passed the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986, establishing mandatory minimum sentencing for drug-related offenses [2]. The increased criminalization of substance use tied with increased drug law enforcement led to the American phenomenon of mass incarceration. Since 1980, the number of American arrests for drug possession has tripled and today one-fifth of the prison population is serving time for a drug-related offense [1]. 

This mass incarceration has differentially impacted black Americans. The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 included sentences for offenses involving crack cocaine, used more commonly by black Americans, that were one hundred times more severe than sentences for offenses involving the equally dangerous powder cocaine, used more often by white Americans [2]. As aforementioned, prosecutors are more likely to seek the mandatory minimum sentence for a black defendant than a white defendant even when the defendants are charged with the same crime [3]. 

Often, the criminal justice reform narrative has centered on men. It is also important to recognize how the war on drugs has affected women, and specifically women of color. Since the war on drugs and subsequent tough on crime initiatives, the number of female inmates in the United States has increased by 646 percent, which is nearly double the rate for men [4]. In 1988, Congress amended the Anti-Drug Abuse Act and applied mandatory minimum sentences to any member of a drug trafficking conspiracy; this includes activities such as “living where drugs are sold, being present during a drug sale, or counting money” [4]. Considering not only that women are expected to contribute to the household but also that women often remain in relationships with men involved with drugs because of fear of assault, women are frequently at a heightened and unfair risk of incarceration [4]. 

Black women are almost twice as likely as white women to be incarcerated for drug-related offenses, even though drug use occurs at similar rates across racial groups [5]. In addition to these continued racial disparities in sentencing, black women were unjustly labeled “welfare queens” in the 1980s [6]. Policymakers and the media depicted black women as unfeminine cheats who gave birth to “crack babies,” wrongly blaming them for the cause of the social and economic decline of the late 20th century [6]. 

Prejudiced people and laws have impacted not only how many people get arrested, but also who gets arrested. Drug law enforcement initiatives have targeted black Americans. Often, women who are in fact victims are incarcerated on conspiracy charges, and this disproportionately impacts black women. Unfair arrest practices and sentencing create cycles of not only poverty, but also racism, and perpetuate long-standing ills of American society. To address these wrongs, we must fundamentally amend drug laws and their enforcement practices and examine our own prejudices.

References

[1] Pearl, Betsy. “Ending the War on Drugs: By the Numbers.” Center for American Progress. June 27, 2018. https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/criminal-justice /reports/2018/06/27/452819/ending-war-drugs-numbers/.

[2] HISTORY.COM Editors. “War on Drugs.” May 31, 2017. https://www.history.com/topics/crime/the-war-on-drugs#section_6.

[3] Drug Policy Alliance. “The Drug War, Mass Incarceration and Race.” January 25, 2018. http://www.drugpolicy.org/resource/drug-war-mass-incarceration-and-race-englishspanish.

[4] Mesic, Aldina. “Women and the War on Drugs.” Public Health Post. May 16, 2017. https://www.publichealthpost.org/research/women-and-the-war-on-drugs/.

[5] Drug Policy Alliance. “Women and the Drug War.” https://www.drugpolicy.org/issues/women-drug-war.

[6] Harris-Perry, Melissa. “The rest of the story: Black women and the War on Drugs.” The Undefeated. September 15, 2016. https://theundefeated.com/features/the-rest-of-story-black-women-and-the-her-story-of-the-war-on-drugs-jay-z-melissa-harris-perry-nyt/.

---

Sophie Lovering is a junior at the University of Pennsylvania majoring in Philosophy, Politics, and Economics and minoring in American Sign Language and Deaf Studies. She has a passion for criminal justice reform and is involved in Beyond Arrests: Re-Thinking Systematic Oppression.

When Amazing Grace Finds You

An impromptu rendition of Aretha Franklin's Amazing Grace by Councilwoman Adrienne Adams of New York City Council, 28th district. Art by Yang Sun.

BY: SHANIA THOMAS, SUMMER 2020 COLLABORATOR AT POWER IN PLACE

Last year, in an interview with us, Councilmember Adrienne Adams was asked what injustice angered her most. At that time, it was the Eric Garner case. This both surprised me yet was not shocking at all. What were the odds that this interview would mention the same injustice that has been so vividly brought to light over the last week: police brutality and the killing of innocent black people? That is, in turn, what surprised me the least. That even though we had just fought the battle for Garner, a battle fought and lost with the effective acquittal of Officer Pantaleo, we were here again fighting for the right to survive as black Americans.

As the sick irony of it began to subside to the same hopelessness I had felt since I saw the video of a man die from knee strangulation, the sweet sound of Amazing Grace began to play. It was Adam's voice echoing in the cathedral as she paid tribute to the late Aretha Franklin.

As she soared through the hymn, I couldn't help but feel calmed and renewed. This song of hope, salvation, and redemption pierced my broken heart. It is no wonder that all people across the nation, black, white, Christian, or not, feels the power of these words almost as if it were another national anthem. Perhaps its universality comes from us all knowing that each of us, just like our country and the institutions of which she is built, may be broken, but no one and nothing is beyond redemption. Change and the ability to be rescued from the storm of your own wrongdoings is not out of reach. The best is yet to come if we hold on to Grace.

Thinking about how a song that gave me hope for a better future was written by a slave trader turned theologian, a new irony presented itself. Is it not true that fantastic art, especially music, has such a transcending power in its ability to speak in ways that seemed impossible? As council member Adams said, music allowed her "to find [her] voice, not just as a singer, but as an advocate and an activist in [her] community." 

My hope is that we will all use our voices, in every form they come in, to bring about our country's redemption. In the same way, Adam's song helped me, we each have a gift that will give us amazing grace.

Video editing and art by Yang Sun. You can find more of her amazing work on her Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/littlemomentsinart/. 

---

Shania Thomas is a rising senior at Brandeis University majoring in Health Policy and Politics with minors in Social Justice Policy and Legal Studies. She is also an Associate Justice for the Student Union and a Central Massachusetts Organizing Lead for the Every Voice Coalition. She has a passion for all things healthcare and believes the injustices against Black Americans to be one of the greatest public health crises of her time.

Power in Place's Dedication to Racial Equality

Art by Yang Sun.

By: Sophie Lovering, Summer 2020 Collaborator at Power in Place

Power in Place has dedicated 2020 as the year we celebrate women of color. In 1920, women were granted the right to vote; but not all women. Women of color and immigrant women continued to battle for voting rights. Thus, we have dedicated this summer to exploring this narrative and celebrating women of color in the political sphere. 

As evidenced by police brutality and inequality in our criminal justice system, America still has a long way to go in the fight for racial equality. Power in Place would like to bring attention to the systemic racism that perpetuates our society and provide resources should you have the means to donate or participate in some other way.

There are several actions you can take to participate in change. Donating, signing petitions, having meaningful discussions, considering your prejudices, and joining peaceful physical movements are all beneficial to yourself and your community. The link at the end of this post will direct you to a list of resources compiled by Power in Place collaborators. This list is by no means exhaustive, but it should help if you are looking for direction. 

Power in Place will continue to uplift Black women in politics. Please continue to check our blog and social media accounts for further information. Click here to find the aforementioned resources.

---

Sophie Lovering is a junior at the University of Pennsylvania majoring in Philosophy, Politics, and Economics and minoring in American Sign Language and Deaf Studies. She has a passion for criminal justice reform and is involved in Beyond Arrests: Re-Thinking Systematic Oppression.