This session, I have to take this “Readings in Criminal Jusitce” class.  Basically, we choose 6 books, get them approved by the professor, read one a week and submit a book review.

The criteria for the book review is as follows:

“Book Reviews: For each Book Review, you will read your approved material and complete a critical
analysis report. Book Reviews should include a summary of the book, but must be more than a
simple book report. They must include a critical analysis of the book coupled with how the book may
contribute to the literature of criminal justice. Other observations about the author’s credibility,
sources, methodology, and ability to be up-to-date should also be included to the best of the
student’s ability. Book Reviews should be 3-5 pages written in Word format, and follow APA style.”

So, last week I did my book review on The New Jim Crow:  Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness by Michelle Alexander.  The book discuses Alexander’s theory that the criminal justice system practices a system of institutionalized racism that attempts to disenfranchise people of color in the same social and economic way as the Jim Crow laws of the south had previously.

As emphasized above, one component of the paper is to discuss the author’s credibility, for which I wrote:

“Michelle Alexander is a litigator and civil rights activist and litigator and recipient of a 2005 Soros Justice Fellowship and holds a joint appointment at the Kirwan Institute for the Study of Race and Ethnicity and the Moritz College of Law at Ohio State University (Alexander, 2010).  Alexander previously served as director of the Racial Justice Project at the ACLU of Northern California and later directed the Civil Rights Clinics at Stanford Law School where she served as an Assistant professor (Alexander, 2010).”

I thought that would be sufficient but apparently not, my professor had a question which was:

“Why is this author credible?  All of her positions have been with ideologically left organizations.  Does her book provide a fair and balanced analysis of the laws and the application of these laws to most people?  Do you personally view this author to be credible?  Why or why not?

This is where your critical thinking skills will come into play.  How do we evaluate an author that appears to have an agenda.

I had a student that reported on a book written by David Duke.  He claimed Duke was credible because he was an elected official.  I would argue that as a member of the KKK, he was not credible.  I would personally question anything that he wrote.

Your thoughts…..”

My thoughts??  My thoughts are “Why in all hell are we comparing Michelle Alexander to the card carrying KKK politician David Duke?”

In all of the years that this man has been teaching, the only author of questionable credibility he has encountered has been David Duke?

*No Words*…..*Blank Stare*.  I have a bad habit of shooting off my mouth at or around the same time that I am trying to process and get the full gist of a situation.  I got the gist of this one rather quickly……he’s comparing an accomplished and educated author against LSU graduate and Ku Klux Klan aficionado David Duke.  Makes perfect sense to me…….ok, I’m lyin, makes no damned sense and is slightly offensive.

I finally got around to answering the question wearing by Sunday best, student hat, the one’s like they give out at the “Professionalism School for the Tactfully Challenged”:

“You are correct, most of her positions have been with left organizations, however, the issue of a disproportionately amount of minorities in prison has been a discussion in criminal justice, especially after passage of the truth in sentencing legislation, the war on drugs and mandatory sentencing legislation .  However, when she first entered the field of law, she was not focused on race and became focused on race after having a personal encounter regarding race and the criminal justice system.  I think that she could qualify in court as an expert witness on the topic of racial disparity in the criminal justice system based on her qualifications.

Her book does not provide a fair and balanced analysis of the laws and application of these laws to most people, it’s not designed to, and her book is designed to highlight what she perceives as institutional racism in the criminal justice system.  I think she goes beyond just saying “it’s a racial issue” to outlining why and how she believes the criminal justice system is a system of disenfranchisement for people of color and how it can be compared to other social systems such as the Jim Crow laws of the south.  Alexander also references statistics that are accessible by the public and prepared by organizations that are considered non-biased, such as the United States Department of Justice.  After looking at David Dukes credentials, I have to say that I agree with you, I think he pales in the credibility comparison to Michelle Alexander.

In the respect that Michelle Alexander’s perspective is plausible and she is, by qualifications a reliable source on racism in the criminal justice system, I would find her to be credible.  Although I find her credible does not mean that I agree with every word she says.  I think there is a large socio-economic piece that also lends to a higher incarceration rate among minorities but I am hard-pressed to believe that it’s the only component. ”

That made perfect sense to me and he gave me credit for my answer but in reading some of the other input he had to offer, I think that my professor doe not believe race is an issue as far as the criminal justice system is concerned.  I don’t know what criminal justice this retired law enforcement professional is looking at but the one here in the U.S. does not afford the same opportunities to minorities or the poor that other’s have.

I am just still all caught up that we even had to discuss David Duke…….and how did we get there, again?