BY MARTIN KICH
It is woefully obvious that individual police officers, police departments, and the municipal governments that fund law enforcement and define its responsibilities have a whole host of changes that they need to consider and to make.
But the unions that represent police officers need to make at least one very fundamental change.
In our faculty contract, we define several related things: what constitutes behavior warranting discipline, what processes must be followed in pursuing various degrees of discipline, and what penalties might be imposed if discipline is warranted.
From the origins of our collective-bargaining chapter almost a quarter of a century ago, we have made very clear to our members that we defend the contract, not our individual members: that is, we defend our members’ right to due process and fair treatment in the discipline process, but we do not try to defend our members’ behavior. Our role in discipline hearings is that of a very interested observer, not an advocate.
In this way, our union is generally not put in the ultimately corrosive and even untenable position of defending unprofessional behavior—or, worse, of defending the indefensible.
I say “generally” because just as our responsibility is to defend our members’ rights under the contract, the administration’s responsibility is to enforce the contract in a conscientious manner. In some instances, we have taken cases to arbitration not because we thought that the discipline of a faculty member was completely unwarranted but because the administration’s pointed failure to adhere to basic terms of the contract would set a terrible precedent for future cases.
Those of you who have been following this blog for several years or more are aware that our CB unit’s relationship with our administration has been more contentious than constructive for a good while. At times it has seemed that this lack of collegiality has been due to the administration’s misguided belief that it would be able to gut the articles covering discipline, among other elements of our contract that it has found bothersome. In any event, the number of cases that we have been taking to arbitration has been increasing, and that in itself suggests that a system intend to insure accountability on all sides is under stain. So, it has been more important than ever that we have consistently provided explanations to our membership as to why our executive committee, after consulting with our chapter attorney, has decided that expending our resources on an arbitration case is warranted.
In addition to the discipline articles in our contract, all of our departments have bylaws covering evaluation and the criteria for promotion and tenure. We have had much the same role in those processes—trying not to second-guess the professional judgment of those serving on the relevant committees but attempting to insure that the criteria have been applied fairly to a faculty member. In many cases, insuring fairness simply involves comparing one case to others in which the outcomes have been different, to ascertain if there has been selective bias, or perhaps to other cases in which the outcomes have been the same to ascertain if there has been a pattern of bias.
Returning to the police, although there are some glaring issues with the culture in many departments and although the talking point of “a few bad apples” is clearly a way to try to avoid confronting those issues, I do not think that all or even most current police officers are hopelessly irresponsible. Instead, I think that their unions are reinforcing the worst aspects of departmental cultures by defending all members regardless of the severity in the lapses in professional standards—with the result that a false equivalency has, in effect, been created between minor lapses due to carelessness and actions that are clearly and grievously criminal.
Yesterday, I saw a news report that a state association of labor unions is considering expelling police unions. I think that that is a mistake. Unions can be reformed—and not just superficially. Even after the police force in Camden, New Jersey, was completely dismantled and then reconstructed, the new force unionized. Indeed, in many instances, reform of how the unions operate may not only be a precondition to genuine reform in how the departments operate, but it may also be one of the more relatively straightforward parts of the reform process.
In a period in which unions are under constant attack, I think that there is a profound difference between defending unions that have developed a very skewed sense of their purpose and defending the general notion that, more often than not, unions are a force for good. It’s time for the police unions to demonstrate that they, above all other unions, recognize that they need to be that sort of force for good.
The “blue wall” needs to be what preserves our fundamental rights against the forces that regularly threaten to erode or undermine them—and not what protects people who have demonstrated that they have no right to the public respect that ought to be inherent to being in public service.
Policing and military have become an unlawful weapon of crimes over the centuries. Its time for both to be dismantled and replaced by a law abiding public safety service whose mission ought to be to serve without arrests, bodily restraints or force of any kind but with the promise of protection from injustices universally.
It may be that police union contracts are inadequate and tend to support “arrests, bodily restraints or force.” (Why this political screed about cop unions is relevant to academia is another issue.) However, I take issue with the premise that “In our faculty contract, we define several related things: what constitutes behavior warranting discipline, what processes must be followed in pursuing various degrees of discipline, and what penalties might be imposed if discipline is warranted.”
This MAY be true for tenured faculty but it is hardly the case for adjuncts, even if they are represented by a union. In my case, the PSC, which represents both tenured and “contingent” faculty at CUNY, has inscribed in its contracts that adjuncts have NO Academic Freedom and NO protections under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Part-timers cane be fired or non-renewed without cause, which seems to fly in the face of directives from the NY State Department of Labor.
Need proof: How about MY situation at CCNY:
https://www.academia.edu/23593134/A_Leftist_Critique_of_Political_Correctness_Gone_Amok_–_Revised_and_Updated
Police unions are not reformable because police are not reformable. Here is my 3 step plane for police. 1. Disarm them (many will quit because they can no longer kill people), 2. Remove all funding to police agencies. 3. Disband police agencies. Then, and only then, can humans regain control over the armed forces of the state and the murderers in our midst.
Oh, and by the way, unions became business unions, not workers’ unions, with the AFL CIO merger in 1955.
The 3-step approach to police elimination proffered above would be wonderful IF (and only if) criminals also disarmed.
I have no love for the police as an institution — they have never assisted me when I needed their help + I was tear-gassed by “New York’s Finest.” and almost shoved through a plate-glass window by police horses during peaceful demonstrations. However, there ARE circumstances in life when some sort of force may be necessary to prevent harm to innocent victims (kids, etc.). What does Geoffrey Skoll have in mind for those situations? (An honest question, not a rhetorical one.)
I have never seen the kind of situation you describe. On several occasions I have lived in neighborhoods where gang warfare was endemic. I stand with Brendan Behan: “There is no human situation so bad that it cannot be made worse by the presence of a policeman” (this quote varies as he said it on multiple occasions). In place of police, I propose several different kinds of organizations–e.g., as US suicides regularly are about double homicides, establish a suicide prevention organization. There are others if we think about it.
I HAVE encountered life-threatening situations on several occasions, maybe because I grew up in New York City in the bad old days — when admittedly police corruption was endemic. Since you mention gangs, under your plan what would be done about the rampant murders in Chicago, Baltimore, et al. — not that the cops are doing anything about it now?
You mention “several different kinds of organizations” but aren’t very specific. I am sincerely interested in what the New Society will look like. Sure, suicide prevention is a good thing, but don’t we already have such organizations? What, SPECIFICALLY, takes the place of the police force, if anything? Would we eliminate prisons as well, since there might not be anyone around to actually arrest rapists?
Your question about what specifically takes the place of police: I would rethink the purpose of police, or maybe think about it in the first place. Modern police in the West are maintenance staff for the social order–they are the armed force of the state. Maybe there should be no such thing.
OK, that clarifies. I agree that the police are part of what neo-Marxist Louis Althusser called “the Repressive State Apparatuses.” That said, merely “rethinking” the status quo sounds very preliminary; we’ve had many centuries to think about all this, no?
I completely agree that thinking is only the beginning. I don’t even see thinking,and academics should at least make the gesture. Also Louis was by no means the first. Engels had a few comments and so did Proudhdon. For example, I had the misfortune of being on the faculty of criminal justice programs. I failed to notice thinking about the purpose of police. They never discussed it among each other, let alone students. I’ve also served in sociology faculties–same thing. My PhD is in anthropology, where they do talk about police, but by and large policing in non-industrial societies. That has been changing recently, and there’s more anthroos looking in the mirror. A few historians too.
Here is the problem for academia (and may well be for the police): “trying not to second-guess the professional judgment of those serving on the relevant committees.” If those on the “relevant committees” have been bought out with the gift of tenure and a vote in governance, then isn’t their judgment already suspect? It seems to me we have to go back further and grant ALL faculty at least the possibility of tenure and a vote in governance. Same with police. We are not all being judged by our peers.
I’m idealistic and egalitarian enough to believe that ALL stakeholders in a system should have a voice but in the case of academia that would entail non-tenured faculty, adjuncts, students, staff, janitors, cooks,and even campus cops! Where do we draw the line?
As one of my mentors once told me, “Students are temporary; tenured faculty are permanent.” (He could have easily added “contingent employees” in that temp category.) Tenure is not just a “gift” to those who earn it; it is also a commitment by the prof. to the long-term good of the institution (although some/many do not abide by that obligation to the general good).
If ALL faculty had the possibility for tenure, a VERY high percentage would be denied that sinecure and hence would be booted out because they could not meet the high bar set for tenure at most universities.
Pingback: A Fundamental Change That Police Unions Need to Make | Ohio Politics
Pingback: A Fundamental Change That Police Unions Need to Make | Ohio Labor