The New Jim Crow: Chapter 4 Summary & Analysis

Alexander jumps back to the summer of 1853, during which Frederick Douglass and other delegates attended the “National Colored Convention” in order to discuss the condition of African Americans and the problem of anti-black racism. Although Northern Emancipation had taken place, free black people still faced intense prejudice and were at constant risk of being kidnapped and sold into slavery in the South. Alexander argues that the position of freedmen in the 19th century is hardly different to that of felons freed from prison today. As in Douglass’s time, freed criminals face intense stigma, surveillance, and exclusion, and are constantly at risk of being sent back to prison or being harmed or killed by a police officer. Alexander concludes that felons “are the one social group in America we have permission to hate.”

When a defendant is offered a plea deal, they are not told that admitting guilt will rob them of “two of the most fundamental rights in modern democracy”: the right to serve on a jury and the right to vote. Similarly, they are not told about the maze of rules they will be subject to as a convicted felon, nor about the stigma and permanent “second-class” status they will be marked by forever. Defendants are often unaware that, by accepting the plea deal, they will be excluding themselves from welfare, housing, job opportunities, and other basic rights. Although plea deals can initially seem appealing (especially if they involve little to no prison time), this is usually because the true nature of the deal has been hidden. Because courts have chosen not to classify these consequences as part of the “punishment” for criminal behavior, there is no legal requirement for them to inform defendants that they will happen.

Alexander argues that the disproportionate number of African Americans in prison fits into larger cultural messages that black people are “not wanted in mainstream society.” Offenders released from prison must navigate an almost impossible maze of rules and prohibitions in order to survive on the outside. Firstly, they must find a place to sleep—a difficult task when you are now excluded forever from public housing. Being unable to find housing often means people will lose custody of their children, who—as Alexander points out—are thus cruelly punished despite having committed no crime themselves. Although banning “criminals” from living in public housing might sound good in the abstract, in reality it is a highly discriminatory policy that, rather than solving social problems, simply makes them worse.

Access to public housing is one of the most important factors in ensuring that felons have a chance at remaining “drug- and crime-free” once they are released from prison; yet this fact has done nothing to change the policy of housing discrimination against felons. Similarly, ex-prisoners must find employment to meet the conditions of parole (not to mention in order to survive), yet it is still perfectly legal for private employers to discriminate against those with a criminal record. Once applicants have admitted that they are a felon, it is almost impossible to get an interview—especially considering that many will already have disadvantages to their profile, such as lack of education, a suspended driver’s license, and gaps in work experience. Black offenders face an especially strong stigma in the job application process due to the double impact of racial and criminal discrimination.

Alexander cites examples of grassroots initiatives aiming to combat the requirement that job applicants disclose their criminal history. However, she warns that there is a chance that black men will actually face more discrimination without the criminal record check due to the (often unconscious) association between black men and criminality. Although “flat bans” on hiring felons are in many cases illegal, research has shown that those with a criminal record face significant discrimination in the hiring process anyway. Even the fraction of ex-prisoners who are able to secure a stable, legal income are often crippled by the amount of debt they have incurred simply through being caught up in the criminal justice system. There are a whole host of “fees, costs, and fines” associated with being a felon, and thus many newly employed ex-prisoners must hand their entire paychecks over to the state, leaving nothing left for them to survive.

As a result of these debts, many newly released prisoners end up returning to jail. Even those who do their best to earn a living legally are often taken back to prison anyway. Alexander compares this situation to that of ex-slaves in the aftermath of Emancipation; saddled with “debts” they had no hope of paying, many people were re-enslaved by being thrown into prison or otherwise roped into forced labor. Additionally, Bill Clinton’s welfare reform legislation includes a clause stating that those who have been convicted of drug-related crimes are permanently prohibited from receiving federal welfare, such as food stamps. Although most states have “opted out” of this clause, thousands of people are still denied public assistance because of it.

Alexander points out that in most countries, people with a criminal record are allowed to vote, including while they are serving time in prison. The UN has even stated that America’s disenfranchisement of felons violates international law. In order to have their right to vote restored, felons must navigate a “bureaucratic maze” that often involves costly fees. Alexander cites the case of a Vietnam veteran denied the right to vote due to having served time for $10 worth of marijuana, pointing out the absurdity of the fact that someone who served in the American military is denied the right to participate in democracy. Disenfranchised felons form such a significant voting bloc that, if felons were allowed to vote, American presidential elections (such as George W. Bush’s election in 2000) would have turned out differently. Even felons who are not technically barred from voting are often resistant to the idea due to the fact that it involves interaction with government authorities. This fear recalls the violent tactics used by the KKK in order to dissuade black people from voting in the 20th century.

Alexander admits that it is difficult for Americans who are outside the criminal justice system to even imagine what it would be like to be legally discriminated against in almost every aspect of their lives. She also emphasizes that rather than affecting criminals alone, the stigma of criminality impacts whole groups of people who have never seen the inside of a jail—particularly young black men. This stigma is so intense that it can be difficult to overcome. She quotes one African-American man who describes his felony conviction as “a mental punishment,” and a black minister who claims that “‘felony’ is the new N-word.” Yet the emotional pain and shame this stigma causes often goes unrecognized, due to the prejudice and apathy with which black people are so often viewed in America.

Studies show that, despite making criminality far more pervasive, mass incarceration has also increased the stigma associated with having a criminal conviction. This shame in turn isolates and divides people affected by incarceration, as they are likely to keep their experiences hidden from friends, family, and neighbors. People who might otherwise find comfort and strength in communities such as their church deny themselves this opportunity on account of their shame. Alexander compares lying about the status of incarcerated family members to the Jim Crow phenomenon of light-skinned black people cutting off darker relatives in order to “pass” as white. Shame over incarceration can contribute to the self-hatred instilled in people of color through living in a racist society. This in turn contributes to a “repression of public thought” and community.

Alexander argues that poor people of color simply want to live safe, healthy, productive lives, and that the idea that they seek out or are indifferent to criminality is a racist myth. Sometimes people will point to “gangsta rap” culture as evidence that criminality and violence are glorified within black communities. However, Alexander responds that it is a normal coping strategy for people to respond to stigmatization by “embracing their stigma,” much as LGBT people have done in the form of Pride parades. She concedes that there is a difference between embracing gay sexuality and embracing criminality, because the latter is doomed to be self-destructive. Nonetheless, it is hard to see what else young black men are supposed to do when all other options available to them are shut down.

Alexander argues that the “commodification of gangsta culture” and adoption of “black attitudes, cultures, and mores” in popular culture are the equivalent of modern-day minstrel shows, which—like the minstrel shows of the past—are designed to entertain white people while further stigmatizing African Americans. She imagines that in the future, historians will look back at gangsta rap with the same puzzled curiosity with which contemporary historians view black people who participated in and attended minstrel shows. On the other hand, not all hip hop artists fill their music with negative stereotypes about black culture. Alexander argues that the origins of rap lie in “the struggle for a positive identity among outcasts.”

Alexander speculates that when mass incarceration “collapses,” historians will find it baffling that “such an extraordinarily comprehensive system of racialized social control existed in the United States.” It will seem obvious to these scholars that the War on Drugs was merely a pretense used in order to repress and control people of color. Alexander notes that it is remarkable how many people manage to survive at all after time spent in prison, considering the obstacles mounted against them. The people struggling against those obstacles are “heroes” whose experiences are not only unacknowledged, but are even stigmatized within broader society. Alexander argues that if we truly want to aim for liberation, instead of shaming those caught up in the criminal justice system, we should “embrace” them.