Author: prisonscholarsprogram_zfjwjl

  • An Alternative to Incarceration Program

    An Alternative to Incarceration Program

    On April 30th 2014 students in Andrea Cantora’s Criminal Justice class presented their crime prevention program proposals. Here are the summaries of their proposed programs:

    Sunshine Acers – An Alternative to Incarceration Program
    “We have come up with an alternative to incarceration program that we truly believe could work in the future. We call it Sunshine Acres. Sunshine Acres is a place for first-time non-violent drug offenders to be opened up into a new world of entrepreneurship. As a group, we understand that drug dealers are making a lot of money because of the business they have been running. But the object of Sunshine Acres is to show them that it’s not the business that is wrong, it’s the product. The point would be to open their eyes to a new world. To show them what it would be like to live in a world where you don’t have to be in fear every time you find a new customer or make another transaction. The sole purpose of this project would be to point the drug dealers in a different direction away from selling drugs, and point them towards selling food, sports equipment, electronics, or something other than an illegal substance. This will then open doors to give them an option to live a better life.”

    Evolving – A Prison Reentry Program

    “The objective of the program Evolving is to provide a Community and Institution support system that would make available services that would address mental, emotional, spiritual, and financial needs of Incarcerated Citizen who has or who are serving long-term prison sentences. This organization was created and designed to help long term incarcerated men who have been counted out of life because of their long term prison sentences. We believe that there must be a support system established that would provide a sense of comfort, understanding, and hope for long term incarcerated men. During the pre-release stage incarcerated individuals will enter our Evolving program. During this stage we will be debriefing the incsspx0043arcerated individuals to get them out of the prison mindset. They will then be enrolled in special classes that consist of goal setting financial aid, and life planning. Also during the pre-release stage we will be contacting the inmate’s family members. We will be contacting the family members so that when it is time for them to come outside that they will have some type of support system other then the Evolving program. When released the individual will report to Evolving Quarters. They will spend one year here. This mansion-sized house is located on 15 acres or farmland with horses. Quarters include, in ground pool, full fitness center, basketball courts, bonus room, classrooms, computer lab, and a visiting center. On the first day of release our car service will pick you up and we will go to headquarters for a risk assessment. This assessment consists of more questions to help the “Evolves” plan for the “Evolvers” future.”

    The KOV Initiative (Knowledge, Opportunity, Vision) – An Alternative to Incarceration Program
    “KOV Initiative is a boarding school setting designed for juveniles, ages 12 – 17 and adults ages 18 -34 both male and female to serve a maximum of 18 months. Its goal is to help participants reach their fullest potential by providing them with the proper knowledge, opportunity and vision needed to succeed in society. This program was created by the state to give first time, non-violent offenders a second chance at learning how to be a law abiding citizen with the proper learning tools to survive and make good decisions. With a budget of $10 million dollars, the state was able to renovate an old hotel building to house up to 500 inmates. This renovation is equipped with a kitchen, laundry room, conference rooms used for teaching and counseling sessions and an exercise room. We also offer religious teachings for inmates who want to have bible study. This school will operate near rural, farm-like settings, away from the city limits where crime tends to occur at a higher rate.”

    Helping Youth of Today for Tomorrow – a Crime Prevention Program
    “Our group’s program is focused crime prevention. We believe with our program we could start to see a decrease in crime. Many times crimes may occur due to conflict that people may have in the community. Conflict is something that people come in to contact with on a daily bases. We would also be warning them of the alternative to a law abiding life – prison. We believed that if we were to teach people other ways to deal with conflict then we would see a decrease in crime. Our program will be designed to give people the tools that they maybe be lacking to effectively communicate their conflict to others. The name of our program is called Helping Youth of Today for Tomorrow. We gave our program this name because we planned to focus on the youth which would give them tools that could be used now and in the future. We planned to focus on the younger generation, but make available workshops for the older generation as well.Some service that will be provided include different workshops like; Alternative to Violence program (AVP), anger management, communication skills, negotiation skills, mediation skills, social skills, life skills (etiquette, money management, and career focus).”

  • advanced literature, dec 6

    advanced literature, dec 6

    We finished the class by watching the 1954 animated version of Animal Farm, directed by Joy Batchelor and John Halas, which is an interesting movie in its own right, but a very watered down version of Orwell’s allegory. I’m sure none of the men Thug_Notes_Animal_Farmwere surprised that the ending of Animal Farm was depressing, but possibly some were disturbed to realize just how terrible things finally got. But I have to say, most of the animals were asking for it. They followed the pigs blindly and naively; they didn’t pay attention to what was going on around them; they trusted that Napoleon had their best interests at heart, they forgot the past, and they didn’t look out for themselves.

    At the beginning of Chapter 10, years have passed since the rebellion. Many of the animals involved in it are dead. Most of its ideals and promises are dead as well. The younger animals simply accept Napoleon’s historical account and the way he runs the farm. They are now far worse off under Napoleon than under Mr. Jones. The windmill, before it’s exploded, is used to mill corn and increase profits. The pigs, under Napoleon, have become worse than the humans. The commandments have been changed so that the pigs are considered superior to the others.

    This is a very cynical story. Orwell seems to be suggesting that all power corrupts. There’s no way out. In our own lives, we can either join the pigs, and become corrupted, or go on quietly with our own lives, and be led blindly and naïvely. There is a moment of potential enlightenment when seems as though thinganimal_farms could be turned around when Boxer is taken away to the slaughterhouse, and Benjamin has a heroic moment when he tries to mount a rescue operation.  But in the end, even Benjamin is cynically resolved to the disastrous fate of pig rule.

    There can be no actual hero on Animal Farm because totalitarianism eliminates all heroism.  There can be no daring individual acts because all such acts end in death. On Orwell’s Animal Farm, it may well be that cynicism is not just an optional disposition; it is a duty. It is the only possibility of opposition. It’s the realist’s version of hope, the only disposition that can penetrate beyond the implacable barriers of oppression.  The cynic does not accept power, but nor does he accept the tyranny of the status quo. As usual, another depressing book to end the course.

     

  • advanced literature, nov 25

    advanced literature, nov 25

    The men were not in a good mood today – and understandably so. According to a recent memo, the new DPSCS Secretary has decided that, from December 1, in order to curb the passing of contraband, there will be no more physical contact during prison visits–no touching, no kissing on the mouth, no hugging. What will this mean for the fathers of young children? Men with elderly parents? Newly-married couples? It’s difficult to imagine.
    animalfarm Though not, perhaps, for George Orwell. Our final book of the semester is  Animal Farm. Officially, it was Mr. Drummond’s choice, but a number of the men mentioned they’d heard about the book and wanted to read it. A couple of them, like me, had read it a long time ago but were happy to read it again. I introduced the book in class and discussed Orwell, his life and work.
    In a way, I wish I hadn’t brought up the notion that Animal Farm is an allegory, because although it’s interesting (and to some degree inevitable) to think about it allegorically, I also think there’s a lot to be said for paying attention to the story as a story. We began reading the book aloud in class. Comments made by Mr. Simpson and Mr.Barnett brought to my attention the fact that these animals are already domesticated and institutionalized. Their revolution is already doomed to failure. The very concept of revolution, in fact, is a human concept. Animals don’t get together and rebel. In the wild, different species are natural enemies (and a lot of these species are actually man made hybrids and don’t even exist in the wild).
    It was interesting to discuss Orwell’s prose. The pictures he paints are vivid enough to make Mr. Arey laugh out loud, which is a good touchstone in my opinion, though it that doesn’t seem to take much. The prose is almost invisible, but in a different way from Steinbeck and Hemingway’s prose. Hemingway’s sentences were so short, they called attention to themselves; Orwell’s never do. “Good prose is like a window pane,” wrote Orwell in an essay entitled “Why I Write,” meaning that good writing should allow you to see straight through to what is being said, without getting in the way. It should be clear and transparent, and allow you to see what is happening on the other side. Although some of the language here may be slightly technical or a little archaic, it’s generally perfectly clear.
    The attack from Mr. Jones and the other farmers is the first sign that the animals are going to have divided loyalties. This probably won’t be the only attack from the humans, so there’s going to be a need to concentrate on defense. But there’s also a need to keep their own ranks in order. And then there’s Snowball and his Utopian windmill. If it works, it could lead to a three-day working week—and Snowball’s a smart pig. But Napoleon seems even smarter, since he’s managed to privately train a pack of savage attack-dogs as his own private army to run Snowball out of town. Snowball is quickly forgotten, and before long the windmill is being discussed again, only this time it’s Napoleon’s idea.
    The men noted that the pigs are taking advantage of most of the other animals on the farm, realizing that they’re basically very good, but very gullible. Nobody has any real access to information, so rumors fly around and nobody knows who to trust, or even what really happened during the Battle of the Cowshed. The situation is in flux, and all the animals are anxious and excited, and in situations like this, manipulators can take advantage of the weak. It’s notable how dumb and ignorant so many of the animals seem, how much they’re at the mercy of the pigs, who are the only ones with any real knowledge, since they’re the ones who can read and write. And of course, the pigs are on top because the revolution was started by one of their own: Old Major, the heroic pig who revived the philosophy of Animalism.
    If the pigs represent political leaders and the animals represent the ordinary people, Orwell does not have an especially good opinion of either. With this cast of characters—and with attributes like greed, selfishness, fear and hunger for power—it’s difficult to imagine any political situation actually working. No wonder we’re in such a mess. In reality, animals seem to govern themselves much better than we humans do.

     

     

  • advanced literature nov 17

    advanced literature nov 17

    Our second book of the semester is Mike’s choice: Ernest Hemingway: The Old Man and the Sea. I have to say: Hemingway is the kind of author I think of as another “man’s” writer. 12387819Like Steinbeck, it’s all externals, action, physical details. This is another book I’m going to be suffering through. I hope everyone else enjoys it enough to make my pain worthwhile.

    Last summer, I read a book by Edith Wharton, a nineteenth century American writer, called The Reef. Towards the end of this novel, the female protagonist, Anna Leath, begins to realize that she has highly ambivalent feelings about the man she’s engaged to, whom, she’s just discovered, has had an affair with the family’s governess. Of Anna, Wharton writes:

    “She recalled having read somewhere that in ancient Rome the slaves were not allowed to wear a distinctive dress lest they should recognize each other and learn their numbers and their power. So, in herself, she discerned for the first time instincts and desires, which, mute and unmarked, had gone to and fro in the dim passages of her mind, and now hailed each other with a cry of mutiny.”

    I remember, when I read this passage, being so moved and impressed by it because it’s a perfect example of exactly the kind of thing I look for and love in a fiction writer – the ability to capture and express those psychological moments that are central to human life and relationships.

    This may sound like a roundabout way of why I don’t like Hemingway and Steinbeck, but in fact I’m working very hard as I read to understand why this kind of writing does so little for me, and why I find it so empty.

    In our discussion last week, Josh said, “men are visual creatures.” It’s certainly true that, in general, men respond to visual stimulation more readily than do women. The men in the group may enjoy this book because it’s so visual, and the characters so elemental, the story so simple and mythic: man and boy versus the elements. I’m not a visual person, however. What I look for is psychological insight and unexpected language, and this book has neither. Nor did the last one. Again, I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with the book – it just doesn’t have what it takes to get me going. There’s an old man, and there’s a big fish. But it’s not enough. Moby Dick, another story of an old man and a big fish, is much more interesting to me because there’s a lot of psychology involved (and some interesting secondary characters). But here, there’s just a man and a fish. And I’m not hooked.

  • JCI Scholars in the Marshall Project

    This excellent article by Beth Schartzapfel, Staff Writer at the Marshall Project, refers to the JCI Prison Scholars program, and includes quotes from scholars Josh Miller and Vincent Greco. 

    Obama is Reinstalling Pell Grants for Prisoners

     

  • Papers, Please

    While we here at JCISP recognize that we have a much easier time with the bureaucracy than many of our comrades at other facilities, Dan Steinberg shares this vignette of dealing with obstacles in the Free Will, Intention, and Responsibility class he co-teaches with Bryce Huebner and Rebecca Kukla, to procedures that many teachers take for granted:

    “My colleagues and I have had some trouble getting our readings into the hands of the students. As a fail-safe, Bryce Huebner brought paper copies of the reading we had assigned to the class we were going to teach on it, so that if they hadn’t received it in advance, at least they’d have it to review. We were stopped at the entry gate, though, and told we couldn’t bring anything unapproved, even the printouts. (They started to flip through the papers, to see if anything in the material was subversive I guess, but they stopped trying to evaluate it and then just told us we couldn’t take it.)

    When we were let in, the students told us they had not, in fact, received the readings. We told them what happened. In frustration, I noticed there was a stack of paper on the desk in the front of the room, just as big as the pile we had tried to bring in. ‘That’s what we couldn’t bring in!’ I shouted. ‘That’s exactly what they didn’t want us to give you! Here it is!’”

  • Pell Grants For Prisoners

    Secretary of Education Arne Duncan announced Monday that the White House will take advantage of a loophole in the 1994 law that banned incarcerated Americans from using Pell Grants to pay for college, “developing experimental sites that will make Pell grants available” to prisoners.

    This move, which has long had the backing of philanthropists and lawmakers, will be announced Friday with the staff of the Goucher College Prison Education Program in Jessup, Maryland. After three to five years of data-gathering, Democrats and the White House hope that the ban will be completely eliminated. (Previous data gathered by the Three State Recidivism Study and the RAND Corporation suggests that college educations are cost-saving measures that significantly reduce re-offence and re-incarceration.)

  • Summer Teaching Schedule (Better Late than Never)

    While it may be the middle of July, the JCI Scholars Program has not been as quiet as the website over the summer. Over on our current classes page you can now find links to brief descriptions of the courses being taught this summer, ranging from mindfulness to the environment and many points in between. Check it out, and I hope to have some reflections on the classes from our instructors and students to share here as well.

  • Raison d’Etat

    So, first, a meta-word. One of the things we’re going to try to do is have the news and views section of this website have a bit more content, so if you’re wondering why I’m being allowed to blog here about general crime/incarceration stuff, that’s why!

    Anyway.

    For a while now, I’ve been trying to teach myself some of the late Foucault’s thought, with mixed success. My current project is the collection of his 1977-1978 lectures published in English as Security, Territory, Population. This afternoon, my daughter is at a birthday party with my wife, giving me a rare opportunity to sit down and read something that’s not part of a completely urgent project, and so I cracked the book again. I came across this interesting passage, in the midst of Foucault’s discussion of the shift from “pastoral” thought to “governmentality” and the associated raison d’Etat. Foucault, here, is discussing the concept of the coup d’Etat, which in the context of the literature he’s looking at doesn’t have its modern sense of a violent shift in government but rather of a use of violence on the part of the government that violates the law and norms in the name of preserving the state – more like what Schmitt or Agamben discuss under the heading of “exception.”

    So, while discussing this (pp. 266-267):

    To the great promise of the pastorate, which required every hardship, even the voluntary ones of asceticism, there now succeeds this theatrical and tragic harshness of the state that in the name of its always threatened and never certain salvation, requires us to accept acts of violence as the purest form of reason, and of raison d’Etat.

    This struck me particularly in the context of a conversation I’ve been having with Joshua Miller recently (on Facebook and elsewhere). Lots of folks have been claiming that the recent uptick in shootings and homicides in my home city of Baltimore is the result of police feeling some combination of too resentful and too fearful to do their jobs in the wake of April’s Freddie Gray protests. Smarter people than me have called this out as statistical horsefeathers.

    But another interesting side of this is the form of the argument, even were the statistics in support. One aspect of the argument that comes from a leftish place is to say that we can’t ignore this kind of worry, since exposing poor and Black people to disproportionate criminal violence is itself an injustice, denying them equal protection of the state. That makes the argument sound something like: Look, aggressive policing and mass incarceration are a nasty business, to be sure – but they are the only way to get a handle on the violent crime in some of these neighborhoods. To do otherwise than we do is to allow the state to disintegrate in the areas that need it most. And importantly: You would gladly suffer the same if it meant preserving your safety, surely. That, I take it, is the source of a lot of “if you have nothing to hide…” thinking.

    So, so far, so unsurprising: we are asked to suffer one kind of crime (exceptional action by police and in prisons) to avoid a worse kind of crime. But one thing left out, or at least that if Foucault brings up but I haven’t gotten to, is the distribution of this expectation. “Yes,” I say, “I would accept stop and frisk if it kept me safe from murders.” But the reality is that application of raison d’Etat is itself uneven – it is not accidental that, in my neighborhood, I am never asked to suffer the asceticism of police brutality. Which makes it sound much more like we’re talking about a system where exceptional policing practices are being used to preserve a state (as Foucault earlier notes, one of its senses is “status”) that precisely keeps me safe and exposes others to harm, with their safety from harm a kind of illusion.

    And this, ladies and gentlemen, is why no one should let me read Foucault.

  • Teaching and Learning in a Maximum-Security Prison

    When I tell people that I volunteer teach at a maximum-security prison, many people nod and tell me “that’s cool,” and some compliment me for being “generous.”  But few understand what a deeply gratifying, enriching, and inspiring experience it is.

    I wasn’t a newcomer to the prison environment.  I’d been familiar with several prison visiting rooms over the course of the 17-year wrongful incarceration of my childhood friend, Marty Tankleff (who was eventually exonerated in 2007), and we had discussed prison life at length over the years.  For several years I have also been teaching a course at Georgetown called “Prisons and Punishment,” which included visits to Jessup Correctional Institution and the D.C. Jail.  And I had the surreal experience of playing tennis with the “inside team” at San Quentin State Prison in California, which I wrote about in Sports Illustrated.  But these were always short visits in a controlled setting.

    I started teaching at Jessup in the Fall 2014 semester because I wanted to have more sustained, open, and genuine interaction with inmates.  I also wanted to provide an educational opportunity to a group of people who have largely been forgotten by society.  Research has clearly shown that inmates who further their education while incarcerated will improve their behavior within the prison environment and will be less likely to pursue a life of crime after their eventually release.  The Jessup Scholars Program provided an ideal opportunity to create a productive educational environment in a classroom setting with minimal staff supervision, with a group of students who chose my class and were eager to learn.

    The class was the same as one I have taught at Georgetown for many years, called “Fascism and Extremist Movements,” which I was also teaching in Fall 2014.  In this course, we spend the first half of the semester examining historical fascism, and in the second half we focus on different contemporary extremist movements.  After some deliberation, the prison administrators decided that a course entitled “Fascism” might send the wrong message in a prison setting (after all, gangs and other extremist groups might think it is a “how to” course), so they suggested that I change the title to “World History,” which I came to embrace.

    As the weeks went by, I was teaching the same material in both places—on Mondays at Georgetown with 16 students, on Tuesdays at Jessup with 35 students. Although obviously the level of academic preparation was different across the two groups, I was continuously impressed by the high-quality discussions maintained by the majority of my Jessup students.

    We had a particularly enlightening conversation about the concept of charisma, in which we contrasted Max Weber’s rather strict definition that refers to the “exceptional sanctity, heroism or exemplary character of an individual person” as distinct from the common usage in political and popular discourse that essentially refers to “popularity.” We then discussed the role of charisma in the appeal and power of historical figures such as Hitler and Stalin (whose charisma was not personal, but rather deflected into the impersonal institution of the Communist Party), as well as more “positive” leaders such as Nelson Mandela and Martin Luther King, Jr. And we debated whether modern-day politicians like Bill Clinton or Barack Obama meet the Weberian criteria for charisma. Throughout this memorable and engaging discussion, I was astounded by the Jessup students’ knowledge of “world history” and their desire to apply it creatively to the new conception language and framework I had given them.

    The students also kept me on my toes by occasionally offering “outside the box” comments that were often insightful, even if sometimes evocative and provocative. For example, when we were contrasting Mussolini and Hitler’s degree of totalitarian control, one student explained the implications of Mussolini being softer on opponents in his midst by analogizing to his experience with the Baltimore underworld, claiming that Mussolini was “like a pimp who falls in love with one of his ho’s and then loses the respect of his followers.” And every once in a while there would be a random comment or question from someone who was quite lost—e.g., after a long discussion of the role of anti-Semitism in German culture, one student raised his hand and asked if German shepherds come from Germany. Overall, though, many of the Jessup students held their own, even by Georgetown standards.

    As the weeks went by and my enthusiasm for teaching my “parallel classes” continued to grow, I decided to see if we could make them intersect for a week. So I approached the prison officials about the possibility of holding a joint class session at Jessup. To my delight, they were very accommodating and helpful, understanding the clear educational benefit. My Georgetown students—several of whom had previously taken my “Prisons” class that included a group tour of Jessup—were excited about the opportunity. And, needless to say, my Jessup students were thrilled (and one asked jokingly if we could hold the class at Georgetown instead of Jessup).

    In preparing for the joint session, I worked hard to create a format and structure that would make it a productive, effective, and memorable class for all students. The topic we were covering that week was “Right-Wing Extremism in Contemporary Europe.” Given the nearly polar opposite racial imbalances of my two groups of students, this seemed more suitable than the topics of the following two weeks, White-Power and Black-Power extremism.

    The main objective of the joint class session was to create a comfortable classroom dynamic whereby the students from both groups could interact in a way that was not only relaxed and respectful, but during which they could momentarily leave behind their vastly different backgrounds, situations, and opportunities, in order to discuss and debate the materials as “fellow students.”  I wanted the experience to be more than a mere novelty for both sides.  I especially wanted my Georgetown students to appreciate the humanity, intelligence, and determination that my Jessup students bring to my classroom every week.  My hope was that it would move and change them, helping them to think differently about “criminals” and “felons” who are so stigmatized—and forgotten—in our society.

    The class session was phenomenal.  We arranged the chairs in a larger circle, mixed in the Georgetown and Jessup students, and had some light ice-breakers to launch the conversation.  Then I divided them into eight smaller groups and had each group tackle a set of core questions about the topic (mainly evaluating how contemporary right-wing movements relate to historical fascism in several different respects).  When we returned to the full group, each smaller group was responsible for leading the discussion on a particular question.  The time flew by, and the conversation never stopped flowing.  The Georgetown students became more comfortable and relaxed, and the Jessup students were able to contribute their insights.  For just a short while, my two classes became one, and both sets of students were able to shine.

    As someone who has been a professor for well over a decade now, this was without question my most thrilling moment as a teacher.  Many of my Georgetown students described it as their most memorable educational experience, and my Jessup students were deeply appreciative to have had the opportunity to share a “Georgetown class.”

    The next few sessions at Jessup went smoothly, and we closed out the semester with a wide-ranging discussion of the topic “Fascism in Our Future?”  As the final class came to a close, it dawned on me that this remarkable experience was about to end—at least for the Fall 2014 semester—and that I was going to miss this class tremendously.

    Before handing out the Jessup certificates of completion to the 35 students in my Fall 2014 “World History” course, I offered my students some final remarks.  I told them:

    I want to thank you for having inspired me, in three different ways:

    1) with your intelligence

    I have learned so much from our discussions, from your thoughts and reactions to the readings and debates, and your points of view about human nature, social history, and world affairs.

    2) with your sense of humor

    We dealt with serious and solemn themes and topics—oppression, genocide, racism—and you were respectful towards me and each other.  But you also realized that we learn more when we enjoy ourselves, and your jokes and levity were refreshing.  I don’t know if I’ve ever laughed so much in a classroom before, and I really appreciated that.

    3) with your courage

    I understand that your everyday life here is not easy, and in many ways it is grim and depressing.  I know that many of you have made choices in life that you now regret, and that the laws of our society have put you here as a result.  But I want you to know that I greatly respect and admire how you have acted with class and dignity, even though there are temptations and pressures that try to push you in other directions.  I know it’s not easy, but you have shown me what courage is about.

    Not to be outdone, they provided me with a nicely-produced “Summa Cum Laude” certificate, and the back of the certificate was entirely filled with hand-written notes of thanks.  When I arrived home later that evening, I sat down and read some of the most sincere, profound, and touching comments I’ve ever received.  Here are just a few:

    “You’ve done a great job, and I can see that you’re learning as well as teaching.  If we could duplicate you, it would certainly help.  Until then, continue to teach what you know and learn what you don’t.”

    “You have brought a new understanding of issues about the entire world to me.”

    “Thank you for adding to my life and knowledge.  You’ve introduced me to an experience I will never forget, and I wish you much more success on your journey.”

    It is now over one month later, and I can say that my journey will soon take me right back to Jessup for the Spring 2015 semester.  I’m on sabbatical from Georgetown this semester, as I finish writing a book, but I’ll be in my Jessup classroom every week—teaching and learning.

     

    Marc Howard

    Professor of Government and Law

    Georgetown University
    mmh@georgetown.edu

     

    Jessup1Jessup2