Blog

  • New Partnership with the University of Baltimore

    New Partnership with the University of Baltimore

    UB_Logo_H_BLUETwo months ago, the Attorney General Lorretta Lynch and the Secretary of Education Arne Duncan came to Jessup to announce a plan to offer Pell Grants to some prisoners again. They gave us until October 2nd to find a university partner to offer credit-bearing programs.

    I’m very pleased to announce that the University of Baltimore has applied to the Department of Education to offer degrees at Jessup Correctional Institution: a BA in Community Studies and Civic Engagement, and a BA in Human Services Administration, starting in Fall of 2016. We hope to enroll a cohort of 20-30 students, starting with eligible members of the JCI Prison Scholars Program!

    There’s a lot of work to be done between now and next September, and it’s still possible that the Department of Education might refuse UB’s application. But I am bursting with pride in our students at Jessup for making this possible. At the University of Baltimore, it is our own Andrea Cantora who led the effort and will be shepherding the credit-bearing courses into being. Dr. Cantora came to us with plenty of experience working in prisons, but in her criminal justice courses she saw students who are deeply curious and hard-working taking classes without credit or recognition, and so she’s put an immense amount of time and effort into giving them what they deserve!

  • 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!’”

  • JCI Prison Scholar Photos by Mark Hejnar

    JCI Prison Scholar Photos by Mark Hejnar

    Steven7 copy
    Doug Arey, Mikita Brottman, Steven Luskey

     

    Photographer Mark Hejnar attended my Advanced Literature class at the end of May and took some great photos of the students. Not all the men can be shown due to an arcane policy regarding victim notification rights, but here are some photos that have passed the censorship rules. Most of these men have been in the class for over three years now. Many of them are students in various other JCI classes, too, and have been so for years.

    Luke copy
    Luke, Service Dog, Canine Partners for Life
    Group20
    Advanced Literature
    Ch8.Turk
    Clifton T. Fitzgerald (“Turk”)
    BookClub3
    Advanced Literature
    Charles Doyle
    Ch2.Donald
    Donald Gross

     

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Don’t Call it a Comeback

    It wasn’t too long ago that I was expecting not to teach for the Scholars Program anymore. Things don’t always work out as you expect! But, as of this past Wednesday, I was glad to find myself back in prison. Wait… well, you know what I mean.

    There have been some changes since I was last inside. Our old “inside coordinator,” Vincent Greco, has since been released – great for him! But an adjustment for the program – fortunately, one of our long-term students has stepped up and seems to be doing a solid job of things. I’ve gotten letters from a couple of guys who had been in my classes with return addresses from other facilities, but I also saw some familiar faces on my way in.

    Things are a little up in the air, so this summer I’m only teaching a short course – four sessions on non-violent resistance (to war) based around the War Resisters’ International Handbook for Non-Violent Campaigns. Since we hadn’t met before, we started class out with just some general discussion of what violence is, and why one might at least sometimes decline to use it in pursuit of a goal. I got to go over some of the Chenoweth and Stephan data on the success of non-violent campaigns in response to the entirely unsurprising view that some of the guys expressed that clearly, whichever side of a conflict was more willing to use violence (and more extreme violence) would win. I’m not sure they’re convinced – apparently they had a class last semester with a guy who taught a course on why violence is inevitable (I leave for a few semesters…).

    Running the class itself brought me back to the familiar dynamic these classes often have. Unlike courses I’ve taught in “normal” university settings, the guys in the class are much less willing to let anything I say go unchallenged (itself a challenge when we can’t go to the internet on someone’s laptop to resolve a question), and they are much more eager to pull the class off into their own directions. Which sometimes leaves me feel like I’m just barely riding the wave rather than running a class, but comes from an interesting and good place, I think – we end up talking about whether Mormons count as secessionists because someone has noticed that I didn’t exactly define what counted as successful secession when I was discussing the data… so it represents people engaging with the material, even if often in a way that comes out of left field from the perspective at the front of the class. Oh, and of course, we had at least two conspiracy theories floated.

    I’m looking forward to our next session.

  • 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