Friday, September 26, 1997
The more prisons you build,
PRISONS: Capitalism perpetuates racist misconceptions to expand
prisons at expense of education
By Andi Meck
Fact: One in three black males between the ages of 20 and 29 is
under some type of correctional control, as opposed to one in 15
young white males. In California, 40 percent of young black men are
tied to the justice system.
Fact: Fifty-one percent of state and federal prisoners in 1994
were black. Blacks make up 12 percent of the population.
Fact: Blacks have been incarcerated at 13.3 times the rate of
whites since the "three strikes and you’re out" law.
Fact : In California, 27,207 black undergraduate and graduate
students attend a four-year university, while 44,792 are in
prison.
There are only two explanations for these facts: First, blacks,
particularly black males, are genetically more prone to commit
crimes, or, second, we live in a racist society. One can only hope
that all people would immediately dismiss the first explanation and
recognize the second.
According to Holly Sklar in her article "Reinforcing Racism with
the War on Drugs," three out of four drug users are white. However,
blacks are more likely to be arrested and convicted and they
receive stiffer sentences. This form of institutionalized racism is
very costly, both socially and economically, and at the expense of
everyone’s education.
Between 1984 and 1994, California constructed 19 prisons and
only one university. During those same 10 years, the California
Department of Corrections added 25,864 employees while the state
reduced 8,082 higher-education employees. In 1980, UC tuition,
books and living costs totaled $4,418. By the 1995-1996 school year
the cost of a UC education increased to approximately $12,885. The
hike now represents 57.7 percent of the median income for blacks
and 36 percent of the median income for whites. As a result, the
request for financial assistance has doubled for all students.
Unfortunately, neither the state nor the federal government has
increased money for grants to compensate for the fee hikes. In
fact, money available for grants has decreased.
California has shown that it has prioritized prisons over
education through its budget spending. From 1980 to 1981, 9.2
percent of the states’ General Funds were dedicated to higher
education and 2.9 percent to corrections. However, by the 1996-1997
year, 8.7 percent was allocated to higher education and 9.4 percent
to corrections. Blacks only make up 5.6 percent of the student body
at all UC and state colleges, and 32 percent of California’s black
population are in prison. Additionally, over the last decade, class
availability has dropped to the point that on average, it takes 5
1/2 years to complete a four-year degree. Educational facilities
have relied on part-time faculty, cutting programs, increasing
tuition and limiting enrollment.
California needs more than 20 new campuses to accommodate the
influx of new students entering four-year colleges. It is estimated
by university officials that the student population in California
will increase by 28,640 students. However, this increase in the
student-body population is not evenly distributed across all
ethnicities. It is projected the black male enrollment will
decrease. These statistics were determined before affirmative
action was abolished in California. One can only assume that the
black student population will get even lower.
It is also estimated by the California Department of Corrections
that 38 new prisons will need to be built by the year 1999 to keep
up with the incarceration rate. These new prisons alone will cost
taxpayers an additional $7 billion to build. This figure does not
include operating costs. Nor does it include financing costs, since
most prisons are built with bonds (i.e., borrowed money). This
means that California could be flooded with 71 prisons by the year
2000.
Ironically, "the lock them up" policies come at a time when the
crime rate has remained relatively stable for the last decade. Only
one in 10 arrests are for violent crimes and 78 percent of all
inmates in California are non-violent offenders. According to the
Justice Policy Institute, "once a prison is built, the state will
fill those cells with an increasing number of non-violent offenders
because there are simply not enough violent offenders to fill the
cells."
When asked, 78 percent of all Californians considered prison
construction a low priority over building new schools. The Los
Angeles Times published a poll stating that 72 percent of
Californians indicated that they oppose taking funds from
universities to pay for three strikes. The question is, then, "why
is California spending so much money on prisons?"
The rise in the prison population has made the prison industry a
very lucrative business on many levels. For the correction officer,
crime and stiffer sentencing are synonyms for job security. For
this reason, the California prison guard union donated $425,000 to
Gov. Wilson’s gubernatorial campaign. Wilson is one of the biggest
advocates of the "three strikes and you’re out" legislation. This
was the largest single donation ever reported by a candidate for
governor.
Corporations are making agreements with prisons to use inmates
as part of their labor force. Companies are creating small
manufacturing companies within prisons. After state deductions, the
inmates net about $1 an hour. If these companies used a work force
outside of prison walls, they would have to pay employees higher
wages. Stone Brown, in his article "Crime, Capitalism & Black
America," reports companies that use inmate labor include Lexus,
Spaulding, various hotel chains, "Prison blues" blue jeans and
Eddie Bauer garments.
Some of America’s largest Wall Street brokerage firms, such as
Goldman Sachs & Co., Prudential Insurance Co., Smith Barney
Sherson Inc. and Merill Lynch and Co., are underwriting prison
construction with private tax-exempt bonds. Other corporations that
have joined in the lucrative prison industry include American
Express and General Electric.
Arthur McDonald, former owner of California’s largest private
prison firm, told the Los Angeles Times, "Crime pays. I hate saying
that, but it really does."
However, he fails to mention that the national crime rate and
the drug-use rate have remained relatively stable since 1980. How,
then, can the prison industry be such a lucrative business?
There are two major reasons: Politicians who push legislation
for stiffer sentencing are influenced by the very corporations and
people who profit from the prison industry (i.e., the prison guard
union that donated to Wilson’s gubernatorial campaign). The media
manipulates public opinion by implying that crime and drug use are
on the rise, that legislation like three strikes is geared toward
violent offenders and that the majority of people who commit crimes
are black.
Hundreds of thousands of black men and women are in prison for
long sentences and virtually no rehabilitation due to
misperceptions about the black community. These misperceptions
fueled by the media cause widespread support for legislation
favoring stiffer sentencing like mandatory minimums and three
strikes, specifically for corporate gain in the booming prison
industry. For the rest of society, it is costing millions of tax
dollars to house so-called criminals, who would benefit not from
long sentences, but from better educational services, drug
rehabilitation, community centers, equal opportunity and more and
better jobs.
Californians thought that they voted to abolish affirmative
action. The reality is that whether or not we have affirmative
action in UC admissions, we do have affirmative action in prisons.
The "go straight to jail" policies have had an enormous impact on
the black community and university access.
Meck is a UCLA alumnus and member of the Malcolm X Grassroots
Movement.