Welcome to the class blog! The John Jay - Vera Fellows Program is a collaborative effort between John Jay College and the spin-off agencies of the Vera Institute of Justice, combining an internship and participation in a seminar taught by faculty from John Jay's Interdisciplinary Studies Program. (To see a video about the John Jay - Vera Fellows Program, click here.) Part of the seminar experience is weekly participation in the class blog, which keeps the conversation going from week to week and will be a place for you to share your thoughts and concerns about the materials discussed in seminar as well as the internship experience. The opinions expressed on this blog do not necessarily reflect the views of the Vera Institute of Justice or its spin-off organizations. While the blog is open to the public and anyone, theoretically, can comment, only class members and invited guests will be able to post. You can also look for us on our student and alumni page on Facebook.
Each student has been assigned one week to write the "post." Please post within 24 hours after class. Every week, each student must comment on the post (feel free to comment more than once). Please comment by Monday afternoon to allow time for further questions and responses and so that we can read all the entries before class.

Thursday, February 19, 2015

Stigmatization: thinking like a terrorist.

Dear All, 
I hope that today’s class was really educational for you. I am very thankful for M. German for letting us see the problem of terrorism from totally different perspective. The recent hate crime against three Muslim college students in North Carolina is an ugly example of Islamophobia in the United States. Unfortunately, it is not an isolated case. Leading up to and following the 9/11 attacks, the human rights of Arabs and Muslims in the US have been increasingly threatened by anti-Muslim rhetoric, airport screenings, traffic stops, detentions, deportations, and hate crimes. In my view, that is the shame that there is no real discipline that studied terrorism as Michael German pointed out. Maybe, he is right. However, that is the shame that academic institution and other NGO’s often fail to think about the issues of stigmatization of Muslim community. In general, such problems are not that widely discussed as the challenges that  African-American or Latino communities face. Anyhow, the purpose of this class was not to inspire you to advocate for the rights of Muslim people in the US or in the world. Instead, I was aiming to make you think about other groups of people who are stigmatized in today’s society. What are the other groups of people whose needs social justice activists often fail to address?  
Fourteen years after 9/11, the struggle against international terrorism is at a crossroads. Policy debates on whether to how to proceed with any counter-terrorism strategy is beyond difficult. The line between these programs and human rights violation that may lead to radicalization has become increasingly blurred. In my view, such programs as CVE have the right to exist in order to govern our society from potential violence. It is obvious that there is no ideal program that might be effective and perfect for each side. However, I believe that there is a way to turn stigmatization of particular individuals and groups into reintegrative “mindfulness” that will assist members of both groups in understanding each other. As future social justice activists we are not able to design governmental policies. However, we are able to propose solutions. We have the right to be heard. If you were going to develop a community outreach program in the New York City that should serve to prevent the emergence of “violent extremism (CVE)”, what would that include?

14 comments:

bekah giacomantonio said...

I tried to look for the morning edition clip that I listened to shortly after our meeting, but I couldn't find it. The internet is constantly reminding me that I don't understand it, I guess. Anyways the segment I was referring to spoke of exactly the topic we analyzed in class- CVE, the pros the cons, the reality, and the future.
As for solutions, I don't think there will ever be an America without racial/religious/sex discrimination and profiling. Capitalism depends on a lower class, media depends on having a minority to make fun of, and American people love to be afraid. Racism sells in this country. Of course, you could mitigate hatred for a specific group of people by righting their perception in the press and doing extreme community outreach programs (matching kids with "arab looking" tutors, having community fairs and integrating schools, inventive marketing strategies that educate the nation on all the goods of Islam etc) but something like this would be costly and, ultimately, it would just shift the same sort of sentiments on to another group. I don't think its possible to end stigma in this nation, or this world. I think it will always exist for some people.

Unknown said...

First I'd like to say, thank you Marina for a great class! Michael German was such an interesting addition to your class. For your first question, I think there are many groups within the U.S. that are being stigmatized and little is being done in terms of outreach and activism. For example, in my journal I wrote about stigmatization of people with mental illnesses. At times we see people with "schizophrenia" in the news, being demonized because of a violent crime they committed. However, how many people with schizophrenia DON'T become involved in violent behavior, whom we never hear about? Why is it that murders occur daily but those cases with "schizophrenia" involved are publicized? I think this is done intentionally to stigmatize an entire group of people as dangerous and "to be feared."

As for the CVE Programs, I think a lot needs to be done to change these programs and make them helpful, not stigmatizing. For example, a program that has in its name "counter violent extremism" does not make me think of a program that is helpful. It makes me think of violence countering violence. I would name my group "Act Against" to try and get away from those extreme words with some extreme conotations. I would name the group Act Against as I believe it is important to act against the crime committed, not the person committing the crime. I also believe it would be helful for these programs to include empirical information. For current CVE Programs, little of the information presented is empirically based. Presenting individuals with accurate empirical data and possibly having guest speakers from the stigmatized group might help to reintegrate the group into society and make individuals within communities realize that the crime committed was done by ONE individual, not an entire community of people.

Unknown said...

Great job Marina with your session! It was really informative and interesting, especially hearing from Mr. German. I think you raise great questions. For my journal I wrote how homeless people are constantly stigmatized, especially in New York City. Frankly, I've been on the brink of being homeless on several occasions. With the gentrification and all other payments living in such an expensive city and with low-wages its no wonder why we have so many homeless people. At Fedcap majority of the customers are homeless living in shelters. Homeless people experience many forms of stigmatization, many of them also have mental illnesses.
As for the CVE program, I agree with Lauren in changing of the name. It already sounds intimidating and directed towards a certain population. The most important factor in all the programs is an educational component. Including the community, with plenty of outreach so that criminal subgroups will not form.

Unknown said...

Bekah, I love that you're honest about your cynicism, because I too have felt the exact same way many times. Though I am not sure if it's capitalism, or just basic human nature, to "other". I am more certain of the fact that fear mongering is a terrible problem in this country (think vaccines, superpredator myth from the 1990's, Red Scare etc.). I believe that our political leaders and the media exploit the fact that we tend to fear that which we do not understand, and so present the misconception that a terror threat from Muslims is always looming, when there are clearly examples of individuals from other religions who create terror. I mean, look at the backlash Obama received when he reminded everyone that people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ during the Crusades.

So two points on CVE’s: they manifest the same hypocrisy that Obama hints at, that only certain groups deserve to be singled out for acts also committed by other groups. Secondly, initiatives that are implemented in the wake of well-publicized acts of terror are often knee-jerk and ill-conceived and sadly, designed not to sustainably tackle problems so much as to placate the public that their leaders are doing something substantial to counter the perceived threat; CVE’s are an example of that.

My proposed CVE would be premised on “reintegrative mindfulness”, as you put it Marina. As much as possible, such a program would humanize Muslim Americans by portraying them as family-oriented, hard working, tax-paying citizens just like other Americans who are equally invested in rooting out terrorist activity. (Sadly, non-Muslims denouncing terrorism have much more media presence than Muslims who do so, which tends to perpetuate the belief that Muslims are sympathetic to extremist causes.) I also feel that law enforcement needs to be honest and accountable to not use CVE’s as a pretext to ratchet up surveillance on Muslims.

Unknown said...

I want to start by thanking Marina for such a great class. To make it even better, you have posted two questions that make us think “out of the box” (just like everything we do in the seminar). The undocumented community has been forgotten for a long time. It is true that there have been advocacy groups trying to get help for this community (either a path to citizenship or more protection under the law) before, but they all get cold after a while and little is done. How can people, without the power of the vote, push for a change? I believe that advocacy is the answer. The problem is that not many people are willing to support a cause if they or people close to them are not the ones being affected. I have heard people saying they support Dreamers, but they don’t convert those feelings into actions. A good question to ask ourselves is “ How do we make people convert feelings into actions?”

I agree with Bekah’s idea that “Racism sells in this country.” People blame elective officials, elective officials blame previous elective officials, and this is a cycle that repeats itself over and over. This is why the media take any change possible to dehumanize certain groups. These for-profit businesses only care about increasing their rating and promoting their views. I believe that the best way to successfully develop an outreach program is to educate the community. Before creating any program, we have to collect real data. I am glad Mr. German shared with us those cases in which governmental agencies were misinterpreting data. We also have to start promoting acceptance in our education system. As Braithwaite explains, a shaming that stigmatize makes criminal subcultures more attractive. Although I don’t completely agree that all people being stigmatized will become criminal, I certainly see some truth in the statement.

Alisse Waterston said...

I'd like to echo everyone's thanks to Marina for organizing a stimulating seminar and bringing in a truly amazing guest--someone who has been in the trenches and who emerged from those trenches with a critical perspective and important insights about what is going on behind the scenes that we don't necessarily know about.

I think it is safe to say that Mike German is more hopeful about what can be done than are some of you, based on your posts. For example, Bekah writes, "I don't think it is possible to end stigma in this nation, or this world." Bekah: Can you explain the basis of your belief? Also, your statement is a bit of a conversation stopper. If it's impossible to "end stigma," why bother examining the issues we are examining? Likewise for Gina who suggests the human practice of stigmatizing others may be "just human nature." What does that mean? And what evidence is there for the "it's just human nature" explanation?

It is pretty clear that there are many groups in our society that have been or are stigmatized, and you (collectively) have listed several: people with diagnoses of mental illness, people who have a history of homelessness, those who have been and continue to be racialized, immigrants who are "undocumented" (or who anthropologist Luis Placencia refers to as "informally authorized" immigrants--a label that captures the fact of the importance of the undocumented to thelabor market) as well as Muslims and those perceived to be such.

Mr. German offered some clear argumentation and data for his claim that the hyper-focus on "them" (in this case those identified as "potential terrorists") is not based on accurate data but on a set of false assumptions that actually make no sense and yet continue to be perpetuated. Given this, what is the point of even having such "CVE" programs? Marina seems to think such programs are needed, and I wonder: do we? Should we be asking that question first before designing a particular program? Lauren's post seems to start to get at this....

Unknown said...

Extremism is something that scares people. Initially, people are afraid to die. It is in our mind constantly. We develop the feeling of fear since childhood, when our mothers read us fairy-tales that always have "bad" people. That is how society teaches us that someone has to be bad. And people do commit crazy extremists acts. However, that is not necessarily Muslim people. That is why, society as a group should be aware of this issue and should stop it. However, the problem with definitions is present. What is the difference between extremist and criminal? Basically, nothing. That is why I believe that this program should exist. However, the terminology should improved. For example, counter-extremism programs should be called something like "counter-violence programs". They should support members of society, who face challenges.
Bekah is right. There is a hardly a way to change it. However, why people should get themselves involved in social justice, if there is no way to change situation?

bekah giacomantonio said...

I see myself in a phase of cynicism which comes from the understanding that I do not know much outside of the fact that I do not know. I'm not satisfied with my belief that there is no hope, though its the idea that seems more realistic right now. I want to believe that there are answers to these questions that I just don't know yet, haven't discovered. That's why social justice is worth pursuing for me in answer to your questions Marina and Professor W. I believe that social justice makes the one life (or lives) that you are working with better and that is worth it in itself, and I believe that in the process of working with marginalized populations you learn a ton and that knowledge might help me to gain a better understanding of what is possible in the larger picture.
Gina is correct in saying that our government loves to capitalize from human natures propensity to fear death or to fear in general. I am also inclined to belief that it is human nature to "other" people or groups that are unfamiliar to us, but there is a bigger, greater part of me that wants to belief that humans are universally redeemable and can experience growth and development like no other kind of living thing on this earth.
I recognize that my cynicism is crippling if taken at face value and accepted as truth. I don't consider it truth because I'm so inexperienced and uneducated, but it would take proof or experience to change my perception.

I think a CVE like the one proposed by Lauren would be helpful, but it doesn't sound like there would be much space for personal responsibility. You cannot just examine the crime without looking at the person who committed and why. There needs to be some anthropological exploration of the story of crime otherwise it will continue to happen.

Danyeli Rodriguez said...

Arturo took the idea of undocumented people being stigmatized right out of my head. The media and politicians stigmatize undocumented immigrants to such an extent that they are afraid to tell anyone they’re undocumented, to have any contact with the police even if they are the victims. Their children grow up afraid of their parents being deported and are as a result forced to live a life in school and at home. Undocumentation becomes a family secret that eats at the family every day. Recently, Obama’s plan to defer deportation to approximately five million people and provide work permits has been stopped by a judge in Texas. About 26 government officials have prepared a case against Obama’s Administration for excessive use of power. Undocumented immigrants are then discouraged and stigmatized by all these macro institutions.

In regards to the CVE program, I agree with Lauren—just the name of the program is already stigmatizing the community. If I were to have a similar program in the community and one which is particularly designated to help the community, it would be focusing on educating everyone, not just Muslims. In order to counterattack terrorism we must first educate the public on the reality of the Muslim population: They are not terrorists. If there is a better educated community on Muslim community issues, for example, being stopped, being labeled as a terrorist, presentation of facts about how the ridiculously low chances of a terrorist attack that we discussed with Michael German. Overall, I think the key is education of certain communities who heavily interact with Muslims. Starting a dialogue and communitarian feeling as a way to reintegrate those marginalized is ideal as we read from Marina’s proposed reading.

Unknown said...

Thanks for this interesting post.
If I was asked to create a CVE program to combat violent extremism. I am sure that I will create none. I believe that those groups are symbol of indirect labeling and segregation. From my understanding, creating a CVE sounds like “You (Muslims) are good people but you have potentials of growing terrorists compared to other groups” when in fact anybody can become a terrorist.
First of all, as a country we are still debating over what is the definition of terrorism. I believe in order for us to have CVE programs in particular neighborhood, we need to have a general consensus on what terrorism is and its origins. In case we have evidence that certain individuals have the ability to grow into terrorist. Thus our establishment of CVE will be justified. As long as we are struggling with defining terrorism, implementing CVE would only enforce our biases towards a particular group.
Another question is where are we getting the idea of reintegration? Were we separate in the first place? Even Muslims condemned acts of terrorism. We are not dealing with a situation where one group supports terrorism and the other doesn’t. Even if it means to end stigmatization of the Muslim community, I don’t think through CVEs we will end the stigmatization. For, stigmatization is originating from the labeling of one group as potential terrorists.
Instead of developing CVEs, we should worry about creating equal opportunity for all regardless of race or ethnicity and provide them with the same opportunity that every American are entitled to.

Unknown said...

I disagree with the idea that Muslims or Islam is something that there isn't as much activism around. I know many people (activists) who'll just as quickly protest against islamophobia as they will against racism/xenophobia. These are separate or isolated issues. They are very much intertwined and connected by systematic biases and prejudice.

I think the issue is the xenophobia, racism, and islamophobia that exist. Lauren mentioned that the crime isn't committed by an entire community. Well yes that's totally correct and that's definitely the message that media sends to the world when white men commit heinous acts such as the OKC bombing or sandy hook among many others.

It also really bothers me that we're tending to go to a "humanization, lets show people we're not evil" rhetoric. People who practice islam should not have to prove themselves. They should not have to apologize on behalf of all muslism for one person's (a small group's) doing. We are not entitled (as a society) to an apology if a person who happens to affiliate him/her self with islam commits a horrible act.
The same goes for informally authorized immigrants (I loved this), people surviving with mental health illnesses etc.

Unknown said...

I like that Professor Waterston questions why CVE's exist in the first place. Like many criminal justice initiatives (Scared Straight, DARE to name a few), CVE’s are ill-conceived and may very well end up worsening rather than solving problems. As Mr. German pointed out in class, we have finite resources that are being squandered on something whose efficacy has not been proven, while there are so many murders and other crimes that go undetected and unsolved. Are CVE’s then simply a prop that sends the message to a fearful American public that our political leaders are doing something substantial to pre-empt and prevent terror attacks? I think these programs need to be re-oriented to focus on education, as many of you have pointed out. I like Lauren’s suggestion of changing names to something much less dramatic and stigmatizing.

However, I think our sensationalist media, along with Hollywood stereotyping do a lot of harm in perpetuating and sustaining the stigmatization of Muslim Americans. From intense dramas like American Sniper to light-hearted comedies like You Don’t Mess With the Zohan and hit shows like 24, the roles that depict Muslims are so blatantly stereotypical as to be cringe-worthy. To expose an American public largely ignorant about the cultural, religious and ethnic varieties of Muslims, to such shows has a very detrimental effect that even rigorously designed educational programs will find difficult to counter.

Unknown said...

In response to Professor Waterston’s questions, I was referring to the seemingly innate tendency for humans to construct us vs. them or in-group/out-group dichotomies. And developmental psychology research indicates that we seem to do that from a very young age. Yale psychologist Paul Bloom specifically states that children can distinguish between white and non-white individuals, a behavior that taken on social relevance as they become adults. So as a matter of survival, we start off being able to differentiate between good and bad elements of our surroundings, but as we grow into adults, those distinctions evolve into the acceptance/rejection of social groups for instance.

Alisse Waterston said...

The discussion has gotten very rich. What do you think of Kevin's statement, "I am sure that I will create none" (his response if asked to create a CVE program)?

Let's say we follow Kevin's lead and refuse to design and implement and spend big money on CVE. If you were in the position to do so, what would you do to make the world a safer place? What would be your underlying principles and what would you build from there???