Career Experiences of African American Police Executives: Black in Blue Revisited (Criminal Justice (Lfb Scholarly Publishing Llc).)

Criminal Justice Recent Scholarship Edited by Marilyn McShane and Frank P. Williams III A Series from LFB Scholarly ...

Author: R. Alan Thompson

22 downloads 655 Views 1013KB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

Criminal Justice Recent Scholarship

Edited by Marilyn McShane and Frank P. Williams III

A Series from LFB Scholarly

This page intentionally left blank

Career Experiences of African American Police Executives Black in Blue Revisited

R. Alan Thompson

LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC New York 2003

Copyright © 2003 by LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC All rights reserved. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Thompson, R. Alan. Career experiences of African American police executives : black in blue revisited / R. Alan Thompson. p. cm. -- (Criminal justice : recent scholarship) ISBN 1-931202-57-5 (alk. paper) 1. Police chiefs--United States. 2. African American police. 3. Occupations and race. I. Title. II. Criminal justice (LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC) HV8141.T48 2003 363.2'089'96073--dc21 2003000397

ISBN 1-931202-57-5 Printed on acid-free 250-year-life paper. Manufactured in the United States of America.

Contents

Foreword

vii

Acknowledgments

ix

1. The Impetus for Racial Integration of American Policing

1

2. A Brief History of Black Police

7

3. Early Treatment of Black Officers by Police Departments

15

4. Black and White Officers Together on the Job

31

5. Black Officers and the Black Community

39

6. Black Officers and the White Community

53

7. Institutional Barriers to Widespread Promotion

61

8. A Tentative Notion of the Black Executive’s Working World 75 9. The Research Initiative

81

10. Research Findings

101

11. Observations and Conclusion

155

Notes

167

References

169

Index

177

v


Foreword

When Dr. Thompson first asked me to consult on a study of racial integration in law enforcement leadership, I joked of being jealous because he had undertaken the next step in my very own research on the history of African Americans in American law enforcement. Nevertheless, I was very pleased to work with him and to also read the subsequent results of his endeavor. As readers of this volume will see, Alan’s work is very impressive insofar as it provides a unique empirical understanding of the influence that African-Americans have had as leaders within the law enforcement profession. Fortunately, however, the opportunity remains for me to explore the subject matter from a historical standpoint - Thanks Alan! As future researchers expand their collective understanding of racial integration in law enforcement leadership, Alan’s work will no doubt serve as an invaluable starting point. Not only does he consider several theoretical questions about the career experiences of African American police executives but, most importantly, his inquiry is supported by empirically derived data. One particularly interesting aspect of this volume from a historical perspective is the focus upon perceived changes in the status of African American law enforcement personnel over the years since integration was first undertaken. Although many of vii

viii

Foreword

the study’s 123 participants indicated that working relations and conditions for African American officers are better today than in the past, perceptions of differential treatment and regard persist. Scholars should use this paradoxical finding, along with others, as a basis for further research into the relative status of African Americans police executives. Overall, Dr. Thompson's research has illuminated an important aspect of American criminal justice. It is an interesting "snapshot" that must be read in order to fully understand the role that African Americans have had in shaping the late twentieth century police establishment. W. Marvin Dulaney, Ph.D. Department of History College of Charleston

Acknowledgments

The author would like to acknowledge the assistance of several individuals who made publication of this work possible. Dr. Richard Ward of Sam Houston State University and Dr. Donald Cotten of The University of Southern Mississippi both provided generous funding for the research initiative. Dr. Marvin Dulaney, author of Black Police in America, and Bob Stewart, Executive Director of N.O.B.L.E, both endorsed the project thereby facilitating access to the individuals whose career experiences form a basis for the study’s findings.

ix


CHAPTER 1

The Impetus for Racial Integration of American Policing

With little room for disagreement, the 1960’s were extremely tumultuous years in the history of American democracy. Not only were several prominent political and civil rights leaders assassinated early on, but the nation also became involved in an unpopular war taking place half-way around the world. To many who lived through these years, it must have seemed as though the wheels had come off and society was rapidly careening out of control. Trying as best they knew how, law enforcement agencies across the country struggled to maintain domestic tranquility. These efforts were not always successful, however, as evidenced by the fact that large-scale civil disturbances occurred in several major cities by the end of the decade. In many of these instances the police were simply responding to clashes between two or more groups with competing political ideologies or social agendas. In others, the police themselves were later found to be responsible for unnecessarily inciting much of the decade’s riotous violence. 1

2

Career Experiences of African American Police Executives

When the dust finally settled, several blue-ribbon commissions were created with the intent of better understanding exactly what had sparked this unprecedented era of violence and, more importantly, what might be done to ensure that it never occurs again. Perhaps most notable among these was the National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders (1968) chaired by the late Otto Kerner. In seeking to better understand the phenomenon of widespread mob violence, the Commission astutely acknowledged the breakdown of communications between police officials and ghetto residents as a major contributing factor to many of the riots. Consequently, the Commission’s final report urged law enforcement agencies to undertake efforts aimed at integrating more black personnel into their sworn ranks as a simple method for easing tensions between the two groups. Thus, the 1960’s and early 1970’s witnessed the widespread introduction of blacks into American law enforcement with very little consideration or forethought being given to either the latent or long-term consequences that such a seemingly logical initiative might pose for the new recruits. Perhaps recognizing the potential psychological stress and interpersonal conflict that such an integrative approach presented for the new recruits, Nicholas Alex (1969) set out to conduct a series of informal, open-ended interviews with a convenience sample of black officers regarding their perceptions of differential treatment and discrimination within the New York City Police Department. Despite the fact that he was white and thus an obvious “outsider” to members of the target population, Alex capitalized upon his own employment as an NYPD officer to eventually gain the trust of 41 black officers who candidly expressed their concerns regarding a myriad of work-related issues. In particular, Alex (1969) asked the men about their: 1) Reasons for entering and remaining in police work; 2) Interpersonal relationships with white officers both on and off duty; 3) Perceptions of departmental discrimination in assignment, performance evaluation, discipline, and promotion, and; 5) Relations with both the black and white civilian communities. The net result of these qualitative interviews was a general recognition that many early black officers experienced a sociological role dilemma described as “double marginality.” Although the term “marginalization” had found previous usage in the sociological literature,1 Alex (1969) convincingly argued that it uniquely applied to the situation of black officers to the extent that they confronted simultaneous rejection from at least two significant reference and

The Impetus for Racial Integration

3

support groups - First, the largely white-dominated police department and its officers who refused to accept them as equals, and; Second, the black civilian community which now regarded them largely as “turncoats,” “lackeys” and “Uncle Toms” for having “sold out” to the “white establishment” simply for the sake of achieving middle class status. In simple terms, Alex (1969) interpreted the generally negative accounts provided by the officers he interviewed as rough indicators of social marginalization, concluding that those blacks who aspired to simultaneous membership in both groups were left on their own to deal with the competing demands that often arose between their new jobs and social lives. Partly inspired by this seminal line of inquiry, Stephen Leinen (1984) sought to further explore the working world experiences of black NYPD officers. Like Alex before him, Leinen not only overcame the problem of being a white “outsider” by capitalizing upon his own employment as a police officer, but also chose to conduct his inquiry using a similar methodological approach. Specifically, Leinen (1984) explored the perceptions and attitudes of an altogether different convenience sample of 46 black officers regarding three broad areas: 1) Discrimination and the black officer; 2) Working relations between black and white officers, and; 3) The police and the black community. Within the context of the first of these three areas - Discrimination and the black officer - Leinen (1984) examined in greater detail the following dimensions: a) The manner in which discrimination against black officers had been affected by factors such as changing political and social climates, black police militancy, black politicians, and the news media; b) Interpersonal relationships with both black and white superior officers, and; c) The roles of favoritism and preferential treatment between the races in assignments, transfers, discipline, promotions, recognition and rewards. The second area of exploration Working relations between black and white officers - considered such dimensions as: a) Factors favoring improved relations (black police activism, increased integration, and breakdown of barriers to promotion and advancement); b) Forces against improved relations (Racial exclusivity, incidents between police, and prejudice directed toward the black public), and; c) The variable nature of police race relations (working environment, the job as a basis of solidarity, and the public as a common enemy). Finally, Leinen’s third area of interest - The police and the black community - explored dimensions such as: a) Images, attitudes and expectations (assignment to precincts on the basis

4


of race, and the question of integrated police teams), and; b) The police role in the black community (black police officers as peace-keepers, dealing with ghetto youth, and the black offender). Although not specifically stated, Leinen (1984) seems to suggest through his comments and conclusions that black officers do, in fact, experience the sociological role dilemma of marginalization that Alex (1969) previously described. His comments also suggest that little had changed in the collective working world experiences of black police officers since Alex’s (1969) initial exploration. Regrettably, little additional research has since been conducted to further Alex’s (1969) seminal and promising line of inquiry, perhaps on the assumption that he, and later Leinen (1984), had fully exhausted the phenomenon of interest. The remaining body of literature that does exist on the topic of blacks in policing is largely historical (e.g., when was the first black officer appointed in a given jurisdiction2) or anecdotal (e.g., a biography or autobiography of a particularly notable black officer3) in nature. The consequence of this apparent lack of interest and literature building upon this early foundation, combined with the limited nature of both researchers’ methodological approaches (problems with external validity due to sample selection and size, the agency used - N.Y.PD., and other historical artifacts) seems to be that very little generalizable knowledge is readily available about the collective experiences of black police pioneers, many of whom have since ascended to significant and influential positions of supervisory, command and executive leadership within the profession. The question that then comes to mind is “Why should scholars of police behavior be interested in the collective career experiences of black law enforcement leaders?” The response to this line of inquiry should become clear upon considering the relatively important positions of social policy implementation occupied by a growing population of blacks across the nation. Stated differently, black supervisory, command and executive personnel, many of whom are believed to have experienced the dilemma of social marginalization described by Alex (1969) earlier in their careers, now lead many of the nation’s law enforcement agencies. Failure to more fully explore the collective responses of these individuals to various sources of social and professional marginalization during the course of their careers thus neglects a unique opportunity to better understand the manner in which they have been integrated into contemporary American law enforcement despite facing presumed individual, institutional and social resistance.

The Impetus for Racial Integration

5

In essence, very little information is available regarding what it has been like for black supervisory, command and executive personnel to advance within the ranks of a profession that has been historically dominated by whites. In spite of their methodological weaknesses, the works of Alex (1969) and Leinen (1984) serve as valuable sources for identifying the core dimensions necessary to assess the collective views and career experiences of black supervisory, command and executive personnel. Those relevant dimensions which stand most clear include: 1) Nature of early working and social relations with white officers; 2) Relations with members of both black and white segments of the civilian community; 3) Differential treatment between races in the distribution of assignments and transfers; 4) Equity between races in performance evaluation and discipline matters; 5) The relative influence of favoritism and other informal factors in promotion decisions; 6) Interpersonal relations with supervisors of both races; 7) Interpersonal relations with subordinate personnel of both races; 8) Interpersonal relationships with white supervisors of equivalent rank; 9) Concerns serving as a black supervisor, and; 10) Nature of current working relations between law enforcement personnel of both races. Using these dimensions and items relevant to each as rough indicators, it is generally believed that blacks who are promoted to supervisory, command and executive positions within law enforcement experience marginalization from a greater number and variety of sources than only those two originally conceptualized by Alex (1969). Thus, in addition to the initial rejection they face from black civilians and white officers, it is hypothesized that blacks who are promoted within the professional hierarchy also experience rejection from other critical support and reference groups along the way. Specifically, as aspiring leaders in a historically white dominated profession, it is logically expected that blacks who are promoted not only confront social and professional rejection from white supervisory peers of equivalent rank, but also experience differential treatment and reactions by white superior and subordinate personnel who refuse to acknowledge them as deserving of the same respect given to others. Beyond these three newly conceived sources of marginalization (white supervisory peers, superiors and subordinates), it is hypothesized that black law enforcement supervisory, command and executive personnel also face rejection and isolation from an otherwise unlikely source - namely, black subordinates. Thus, it is quite possible that once promoted black

6


law enforcement leaders are rejected by their only remaining source of social support on the basis of having compromised their values of racial solidarity in exchange for personal advancement. In sum, it is firmly believed that by the time they achieve supervisory, command or executive status, black law enforcement leaders will have experienced marginalization from various sources of reference and support critical to their long-term professional success. These include: 1) White superiors; 2) White supervisory peers of equivalent rank; 3) Subordinate personnel of the opposite race; 4) Subordinate personnel of the same race; 5) The black community, and; 6) The white community. In the end, black law enforcement leaders may very well be left without any professional or social support whatsoever except for that which they are able to glean from others who share in their common dilemma. For one reason or another, however, researchers of police behavior have not been widely interested in assessing the extent to which blacks who occupy positions of supervisory, command and executive responsibility within the law enforcement hierarchy endure these various hypothetical sources of professional rejection and social isolation. In the interest of better understanding the collective career experiences among the members of this growing population within the law enforcement community, the following chapters are designed to not only provide readers with a historical review of their gradual integration into the professional ranks, but also serve as a basis for the development of several specific research questions and attending hypotheses which are then tested. The results of this analysis are then interpreted in terms of their implications for future efforts to expand this heretofore uncultivated but fertile field of inquiry.

CHAPTER 2

A Brief History of Black Police

As best can be determined, the first appointment of a black police officer in the U.S. occurred in Washington D.C. in 1867 (Dulaney, 1996). Although not much is known about the duties and experiences of this particular officer, it is interesting to note that only a few years later in 1873, a black police officer in that same city arrested President Ulysses S. Grant for driving a team of horses at an unsafe pace (Alfers, 1976; Kuykendall & Burns, 1980). Less than ten years following this initial lead, numerous other urban centers began to appoint blacks to enforce their laws. In fact, the last quarter of the 1800’s witnessed the appointment of blacks in many cities across the country, including Galveston, Texas (1870), Meridian, Mississippi (1871), Chicago, Illinois (1872), both Columbia and Charleston, South Carolina (1873), followed by Jackson (1874) then Clinton, Mississippi (1875), Memphis (1878) and Los Angeles (1886) (Dulaney, 1996; Kuykendall & Burns, 1980; Rudwick, 1962) Following the turn of the 20th century, significant appointments began taking place in major cities like St. Louis (1901), Dayton (1913), Berkeley (1919), and Atlanta (1948) (Dulaney, 1996; 7

8


Kuykendall & Burns, 1980; Rudwick, 1962). During the second half of the 1900’s, the frequency with which black officers were appointed to many of the nation’s newly created police forces continued to increase. In particular, substantial advances were made in the South where the greatest objection to such a trend might have been expected. To illustrate this point, Rudwick (1960, 1961 & 1962) has reported that as early as 1945 the Southern Regional Council became interested in the utilization of black law enforcement personnel to such an extent that they not only began collecting data on their numbers, but the various factors precipitating their appointment as well as testimonials by city officials regarding their perceived effectiveness. As a result of this initial data gathering effort, it was reported that between 1945 and 1954 representation of blacks in state and local law enforcement agencies increased from approximately 131 to 710 uniformed and plainclothes officers (Rudwick, 1962, p. 13, Table 1). Despite this initial flurry of empirical interest in the integration and utilization of black law enforcement personnel, data collection ceased after only a few short years. Shortly thereafter, Rudwick conducted independent followup analyses carried out in two waves (1959 and 1961). The conclusion drawn from this early line of inquiry revealed that “Negroes did not lose ground, but they did not gain much either” (Rudwick, 1962, p. 4). Although they were being integrated into many departments throughout both the North and South during this early era, such initiatives were largely viewed as “experiments” (Rudwick, 1962) subject to immediate cessation upon indication that a black officer’s actions posed even the slightest risk of public embarrassment for the agency (Jenkins, 1973). When problems arose, they seem to have been handled internally with black officers receiving a disproportionate number of disciplinary actions than their white counterparts for committing roughly the same types of rule infractions (Alexander, 1978). Thus, the “experiment” of racial integration was allowed to continue perhaps, in part, because there existed a high degree of satisfaction among many police officials regarding its success thus far (Rudwick, 1962). Into the mid 1960’s, law enforcement continued to be largely dominated by middle class white males while blacks were only allowed to serve in token numbers (Alexander, 1978; Dulaney, 1996; Hahn, 1971; National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders, 1968; Rudwick, 1962; Wilson, 1964). As a result of growing disparity in political power and economic conditions between the races, this


9

particular decade witnessed a number of clashes between the police and black demonstrators in several major urban centers such as New York City (Harlem, 1964), Los Angeles (Watts, 1965), Chicago (1966), Cleveland (1966 & 1968), Newark (1967), Detroit (1967) and Washington D.C. (1968). As a result of these and other large-scale civil disorders, several “blue ribbon” commissions were established to explore their root causes and possible solutions with the objective of future prevention (Sherman, 1979). Notable among these efforts was the National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders - frequently referred to as the Kerner Commission (1968). In examining root causes of the violence that erupted in cities like Tampa, Cincinnati, Atlanta, Newark, Plainfield, New Brunswick and Detroit, the Commission made several astute observations. For example, not only was it noted that the presence of an all-white police force in a black neighborhood served as a “dangerous irritant” to the extent that officers were perceived as being there to simply maintain the status quo, but that minorities were sorely under-represented among the ranks of sworn law enforcement personnel relative to their numbers in the general population (National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders, 1968). Examination of available data gathered by the Commission from 28 departments supported this point by revealing that blacks represented only 6% of the sworn personnel while they constituted roughly one-fourth of the civilian population (National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders, 1968, p. 315). Also noted was the fact that blacks were even more severely underrepresented at supervisory levels. For example, the San Francisco Police Department - whose total sworn strength at the time was 1,754 officers - had only one black in the entire department above the rank of patrol officer (National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders, 1968, p. 321, Table A). More dramatic still was the underrepresentation of blacks on the New Jersey State Police force which employed 27,610 sworn personnel, 1,785 of which were white sergeants as compared to only 65 non-white sergeants (National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders, 1968, p. 321, Table A). In fulfilling its Presidential mandate, the Kerner Commission offered a variety of seemingly obvious recommendations intended to remedy these shortcomings within the profession. Primary among them was the suggestion that police departments not only “intensify their efforts to recruit more Negroes,” but that they also examine their “promotion policies to ensure that Negroes have full opportunity to be

10


rapidly and fairly promoted” (National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders, 1968, p. 316). Once adequate numbers of blacks had been successfully recruited, the Commission encouraged departments to further demonstrate their commitment to proportional representation through the full and visible use of integrated patrols in ghetto areas (National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders, 1968). Wisely, however, the Kerner Commission’s members acknowledged that efforts aimed at increasing minority representation on the nation’s police forces would not likely provide complete resolution to the problem of enduring hostility between the police and black community. Rather, this exceedingly complex issue was one that had previously defied such simple resolution. Realizing that the goal of increasing black representation on the nation’s police forces would be problematic to achieve, the Commission broke new ground by proposing the creation of a federally-funded pre-service initiative that would allow young blacks to enter the profession as “community service officers.” In this capacity, recruits would be provided with limited exposure to police work while at the same time completing the educational criteria necessary to eventually become a fully sworn officer (National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders, 1968, p. 317). These and other suggestions were duly incorporated by a number of progressive departments across the country, especially when tied to federal funding (Alexander, 1978; Trostle, 1992). To a certain extent these policy and program initiatives enhanced the number of opportunities under which blacks could enter the profession. At the same time, however, implementation of the Commission’s recommendations served to increase on-the-job tension between black and white officers on many police forces (Alexander, 1978; Hahn, 1971). In the end, the initiatives nonetheless served to raise awareness regarding the potential contributions this heretofore untapped resource had to offer. Acting upon these recommendations, combined with increased pressure from the public, many departments undertook efforts aimed at recruiting and promoting larger numbers of blacks into their sworn ranks (Jacobs & Cohen, 1978; Saltzstein, 1989; Watts, 1981). Thus, the 1970’s and 1980’s saw increased activity in both areas. Encouraging evidence for this assertion is to be found in a number and variety of sources. One such “post-Kerner” inquiry into the issue of black representation on the nation’s police forces was the National Manpower Survey of the Criminal Justice System (1978) conducted a


11

decade later. In its report, the Manpower Survey revealed that the percentage of all sworn officers who were racial minorities rose from an estimated 3.6% in 1960 to 6.5% by 1973. While these findings are indeed interesting, it is important to note that they are based on aggregate level data which inherently represent members of other minority groups (i.e., Hispanics, Asians, etc.). For this reason, it is more technically accurate to examine the results of other studies in which this information has been disaggregated and attention is given to the question of proportional representation among sworn black officers in particular. To this end, the results of analyses conducted by Lewis (1989), Walker (1989) and the Bureau of Justice Statistics (2000) are worth noting. Perhaps a more methodologically appropriate illustration of research designed to directly address the issue of black representation on the nation’s police forces was that carried out by Lewis (1989) who compared the percentage of sworn black officers employed by 46 select municipal police departments in 1975 to data acquired for these same agencies ten years later. Analysis of the data revealed that all but six (6) of the departments manifested an improvement in the percentage of sworn black personnel over the ten year period (p. 258, Table 1). Simply stated, 40 of the 46 departments that participated in Lewis’ survey had actually increased the percentage of black officers employed during the previous decade. Further analysis of the data revealed that 11 of the 46 cities serving populations with over 100,000 residents were so successful in their integrative efforts that they had achieved the goal of racial parity by 1985 (p. 259, Table 2).4 In addition to these comparative findings, noted law enforcement historian Samuel Walker (1989) has also examined the representation of sworn black personnel on police departments in the nation’s 50 largest cities. Walker’s objective was to statistically assess the extent to which blacks had been integrated into the sworn ranks of these departments between 1983 and 1988. To accomplish this task, useable data bearing on the question at hand were obtained from a total of 47 cities. Among these, only two (2) departments - Charlotte, NC and Albuquerque, NM - reflected a decrease in the percentage of black personnel among their sworn ranks. Stated differently, 45 out of the nation’s 47 largest police departments manifested an increase in the percentage of black officers employed between 1983 and 1988. Finally, Walker (1989) also reported the finding that racial-minorities had become so prevalent that

12


they actually constituted a numerical majority of sworn personnel within some large police departments. Most recently, the Bureau of Justice Statistics (2000) estimated that in 1997 there were 48,950 blacks employed as full time sworn local police officers in the United States (p. 4). Between 1993 and 1997 - the last two years for which data describing the characteristics of over 13,000 local police departments was available - the number of black full time officers had increased by approximately 6,600 individuals (p. 4). This change represented a 16% increase over the four year period (p. 4). Overall, it was estimated that the percentage of sworn black personnel in local law enforcement was 11.7% in 1997 up 4/10th’s of one percent from 11.3% in 1993 (p. 4). Beyond the empirical question of just how far law enforcement has advanced toward the goal of racial integration since the recommendation to do so was first made by the Kerner Commission (1968), it is also important to examine how well blacks have been represented at various supervisory ranks within the professional hierarchy. To date, the most comprehensive historical review of blacks in American law enforcement is that authored by Dulaney (1996) who has successfully pieced together from various sources a rough timeline depicting the year in which they were first promoted to the rank of sergeant in select departments. Credited with being among one of the first formally organized police departments in the nation, Boston also bears the distinction of being the first city to promote one of its black officers to the rank of sergeant in 1895, followed by Chicago two years later. As police departments gradually became more formally organized across the country, others began to follow the example set by these two cities. In particular, Dulaney (1996) reports that the first half of the 20th century witnessed appointment of blacks to the rank of sergeant in several major departments like Los Angeles (1917), Detroit (1918), St. Louis (1923), New York City (1923), Philadelphia (1929), Columbus (1943), Cincinnati (1949), and Cleveland (1949). The only caveat noted by Dulaney (1996) in reporting these dates is that several of these initial appointments did not extend supervisory responsibilities to these pioneers. Rather, they were generally “appointed as ‘detective sergeants’ and were not allowed to supervise other officers or to command districts” (Dulaney, 1996, p. 117, Table 5). The lead taken by these northern cities to advance blacks - albeit in limited numbers and capacities - beyond the rank of patrol officer during the first half of the 1900’s was followed by others during the

A Brief History of Black Police th

13

second half of the 20 century as well. Among select southern cities whose histories were studied by Dulaney (1996, p. 120, Table 9), appointments to the rank of sergeant were also witnessed in Louisville (1944), Baltimore (1947), Memphis (1950), Richmond (1952), Miami (1955), Charlotte (1956), Atlanta (1961), Galveston (1961), San Antonio (1966), Dallas (1966), Austin (1969), Charleston (1971) and Houston (1974). Once widespread promotion to the rank of sergeant had been secured, further advancement of blacks within the profession’s hierarchy became more promising. In “Black Shields,” Dulaney (1984) also reported the year in which blacks were first promoted to the rank of captain in several select departments. Among those credited with making such historical advances were Chicago (1940), New York City (1952), Columbus (1952), Philadelphia (1954), St. Louis (1956), Cleveland (1960), Washington, D.C. (1965), Newark (1967), Atlanta (1968), Los Angeles (1969), and St. Paul (1970). Gradually, political pressure began to mount for the appointment of several promising blacks to occupy the executive role of police chief, public safety director, superintendent or commissioner in many cities across the nation. Again, Dulaney (1996, p. 121, Table 12) has provided a timeline highlighting these historic appointments which occurred in cities such as Palmyra, NJ (1958 - Payton I. Flournoy), Portsmouth, OH (1962 - Theodore Wilbourn), Cleveland (1970 Benjamin O. Davis, Jr.), Gary, IN (1970 - Charles Boone), Newark (1972 - Edward Kerr), Atlanta (1974 - Reginald Eaves), Detroit (1976 William Hart), Washington, D.C. (1978 - Burtell Jefferson), Houston (1982 - Lee Brown), Charleston (1982 - Reuben Greenberg), Chicago (1983 - Fred Rice), and New York City (1984 - Benjamin Ward). Today, blacks occupy top command and executive positions within many law enforcement agencies at all levels of government municipal, county, state, institutional and federal. In fact, even a cursory survey of the landscape in American policing reveals several major departments and agencies that are currently or until just recently were under the direction of black chief executives - Los Angeles, Oakland, Chicago, Houston, Dallas, Atlanta, Detroit, Washington D.C., Tallahassee, Cincinnati, Charleston, New Orleans, Baltimore, San Diego, Phoenix, New York City and Richmond, among others. Despite their ever-expanding sphere of influence in formulating policies for responding to many of this nation’s most pressing and intractable social problems - namely crime, drugs and social disorder - very little

14


accurate knowledge about the collective career experiences of this historically beleaguered minority is readily available. In fact, about all that can be safely said about the black men (and in some cases women) who have been vested with such weighty official responsibilities is that they have had to make considerable personal sacrifices as well as overcome substantial public opposition to achieve this distinguished level of professional success. Beyond this generalized observation, not much else is really known about what it was like for many of today’s highest-ranking black law enforcement leaders to ascend within the ranks of a profession historically dominated by whites. In sum, black executive personnel constitute an increasingly influential population within law enforcement circles - one that is just beginning to “hit its stride.” It thus becomes vitally important to understand all that we can about those who, to borrow a phrase from a well-known book on the topic, are “black in blue.” To accomplish this objective, the following chapter will be devoted to conducting a review of that which is known about the integration of blacks into American law enforcement. The most logical place to begin such a review is, of course, the manner in which law enforcement agencies initially treated this newly incorporated segment of the population.

CHAPTER 3

Early Treatment of Black Officers by Police Departments

From the time that black officers first set foot on the job they were treated differently than their white counterparts. Evidence for this assertion is to be found in the fact that they were initially assigned as “doormen” or “turnkeys” for precinct houses beginning around the mid 1870’s (Alexander, 1978; Dulaney, 1996; Lardner & Reppetto, 2000; Leinen, 1984; Reaves, 1991). Their responsibilities during this time also included keeping the station house clean, stoking the furnace, putting out the trash or maintaining prisoner security (Reaves, 1991). To be sure, assignment to perform such limited tasks must have not only been insulting to the ability and intelligence of blacks, but also constituted a gross under-utilization of available manpower. Perhaps realizing that their money and resources would be better spent assigning these men to perform actual police duties, law enforcement and city administrators gradually began to place black officers on foot patrol (Dulaney, 1996). Almost without exception, these initial walking assignments were restricted to exclusively black 15

16


neighborhoods (Sax, 1968). From this point in time forward, black officers were only assigned to work foot patrol in ghetto areas - never would these early officers be allowed to work in white neighborhoods or operate patrol vehicles (Griffin, 1975; Leinen, 1984; Rudwick, 1962). In fact, even the mere suggestion that black officers be allowed to work in a white neighborhood or operate a patrol vehicle seems to have been entirely unconscionable or altogether taboo to both police administrators and members of the white community (Dulaney, 1996; Griffin, 1975; Hawkins & Thomas, 1991).

The Practice of Segregated Patrol Assignments Perhaps the most frequently cited reason underlying the initial practice of exclusively assigning blacks to minority neighborhoods was simple logic - black police officers, more so than whites, were believed to be more responsive to the cultural needs and crime problems of their own people. The available literature is replete with this logic which was, rightfully or wrongfully, reinforced by the Kerner Commission’s statement that “Negro officers also can increase departmental insight into ghetto problems, and provide information necessary for early anticipation of the tensions and grievances that can lead to disorders (National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders, 1968, p. 315).5 Alternatively stated, it was believed that white officers would likely “know nothing of the life-style of the communities where they will work (black communities) and have neither the sensitivity nor inclination to attempt to relate to the community’s life-style” (Palmer, 1973, p. 25). Other arguments frequently cited for assigning black officers to ghetto neighborhoods soon began to flow from this officially sanctioned line of reasoning. Specifically, considerable pressure was brought to bear on police departments to provide increased protection in ghetto areas (Alexander, 1978; Dulaney, 1996; Jones, 1977; Lardner & Reppetto, 2000; Rudwick, 1962; Trostle, 1992). If they patrolled black neighborhoods at all, white officers were often slow to respond to calls for service and frequently dismissed complaints thereby failing to address the area’s persistent and growing crime problem (Hawkins & Thomas, 1991; Jones, 1977; Lardner & Reppetto, 2000; Lewis, 1996). If the police did enter the ghetto for purposes of responding to a call or apprehending a violator, it was not uncommon for them to exercise excessive force against any and all parties believed to be involved


17

(Alexander, 1978; Lardner & Reppetto, 2000; Rudwick, 1962). When white officers encountered black civilians outside of the ghetto, seldom did the interaction result in an improvement in interracial policecommunity relations because white officers would regularly stop black motorists without cause and beat or interrogate them as a matter of standard operating procedure (Cross, 1964; Palmer, 1973; Reaves, 1991; Wright, 1984). At the opposite extreme, the “lily-white” police presence was so prevalent in certain black communities that officers eventually came to be viewed by residents as members of an “occupying force” intent on maintaining the status quo (Baldwin, 1961; Cooper, 1980; Hawkins & Thomas, 1991; Hudson, 1990; Lardner & Reppetto, 2000; Margolis, 1971; National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders, 1968; Reaves, 1991). Consequently, it should not be surprising to find that members of the black community were persistent in their demands that police administrators minimize the incidence of excessive force frequently employed against them (Hawkins & Thomas, 1991). They also demanded that departments either increase or minimize the overall presence of officers based upon local expectations - there always seemed to be too many or not enough white police officers in the area. Given all of this, reason suggested that since black officers were believed to be more capable of communicating with black citizens and suspects than were white officers (Kephart, 1954 & 1957; National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders, 1968), they would be less inclined to use force in order to gain compliance from their own people. At the same time, it was hoped that black citizens would be less likely to view lawmen of their own race with the same level of hostility expressed toward nonminority officers (Alexander, 1978). While a considerable amount of credit for facilitating early racial integration of the profession can certainly be attributed to black activist groups who pressed for greater representation and protection (Trostle, 1992), it is important to acknowledge the fact that their demands also set off a chain of events which quickly culminated in what has perhaps been the most unanticipated outcome of the entire effort to integrate American law enforcement. Specifically, the demand that black officers be assigned to patrol ghetto neighborhoods resulted in the almost immediate institutionalization of segregated work assignments between the races - a widespread practice that black officers across the United States would have to both live and operate under for years to come. In simple terms, black communities pressed for their neighborhoods to be

18


patrolled by officers of the same race. Police administrators, responding to these demands, moved white officers out of the colored neighborhoods and replaced them almost exclusively with blacks. Whether intentional or not, differential treatment between the races in the types of duties assigned to each had found its original justification. As members of the New York City Police Department during the tumultuous 1960’s when such policies were initiated, two white officers later turned sociologists astutely recognized the unique problems that segregated duty assignments and other discriminatory practices created for their newly integrated counterparts. Nicholas Alex (1969), whose seminal work would be later expanded upon by Stephen Leinen (1984), undertook a series of focused interviews spanning almost a full year (December 1964 to October 1965) with 41 black officers involved in different aspects of the Department’s operation. The objective, in Alex’s own words, was to examine “the special problems that Negro policemen face[d] in their efforts to reconcile their race with their work” within the context of American values and beliefs as they existed at the time (1969, p. vii). More specifically, Alex asked the officers about various dimensions of their jobs - “the ways in which these men were recruited into the police, the nature of their relations in regard to their immediate clientele, their white counterparts, and the rest of society, and the consequences of their actions as they saw them” (1969, p. vii). Leinen, seeking to update and clarify the social developments affecting the ability of black officers to “achieve greater acceptance and equality within their departments,” roughly followed the same tack by conducting his own interviews with an altogether separate convenience sample of 46 black NYPD officers (1984, p. 1). When the largely qualitative results derived from these two studies are combined with one another, they provide an invaluable (but not infallible) perspective on various dimensions of what it might have been like to be a black police officer during early efforts to racially integrate American law enforcement.6 One of the first areas of interest probed during interviews with these men was, of course, their thoughts and feelings on the practice of exclusively assigning black officers to patrol ghetto and minority neighborhoods. As might be anticipated, these expressions were not entirely supportive of such unwritten policies. This becomes quite clear in the generally representative comments of at least two officers who explained:


19

There are more blacks in this precinct than any other precinct in the city. Blacks are over-represented in black precincts and underrepresented in white precincts. Personally, I feel this is not right particularly when it’s forced on you and you don’t have a say in the matter (Leinen, 1984, p. 79). Blacks are over-represented in black areas. Manpower is allocated by race, not qualification. The department is using the wrong criteria. Now, if you ask me whether this is a form of discrimination, yes it is. Anytime you shift men around by color and some have to work in more dangerous precincts for prolonged periods of time because of their color, it’s discrimination. There’s just no other way to cut it (Leinen, 1984, p. 79). In many cases, however, segregated patrol assignments were openly accepted by black officers. For example, some of the men preferred working in black areas citing altruistic reasons - namely the opportunity to serve the minority community. Others felt that assignment to black neighborhoods relieved them of many hassles otherwise associated with working in white neighborhoods where citizens would sometimes refuse to acknowledge their lawful authority. Finally, some of the men recognized that this is where they were, perhaps, most effectively deployed. These rationales become evident in the comments of several officers interviewed by Alex (1969) who openly acknowledged the view that blacks were more effective than whites in policing ghetto neighborhoods: It has been my experience that the white policemen have a very high opinion of Negro policemen. Of course, I think there are a lot of reasons this is so. One thing, by and large, Negro police officers are assigned to predominantly Negro areas and this increases his effectiveness because he has greater rapport with people working there than the white policeman. He is also able to come by more information than the white police officer (p. 89). I am for putting Negro policemen in Negro neighborhoods. A Negro policeman in a Negro neighborhood can communicate the idea that the policeman is a friend instead of an enemy.

20

Career Experiences of African American Police Executives The black policeman in a black community is definitely much better than putting white policemen there. Negro policemen can bring about a better relationship (p. 141). I say this: as a Negro I may know my people better than a white individual would know Negro people. And white policemen may know his people better than a Negro policeman. So I think he can be more effective than a white policeman because he is a Negro and knows his people better (p. 141).

Some of the men interviewed by Leinen (1984) expressed this same pragmatic view: Putting black cops in minority precincts may be discriminatory to the cop, but it may also be viewed as a practical administrative strategy. Why? Because there is less community resistance and static putting a black officer in a black area than putting a white officer there or putting a black officer in a white area (p. 172). The black policeman is generally more effective because he can find out more about what is going on in his precinct. This is because he mixes with the people. He stops and talks with them as a friend, not as a cop . . . The black citizen just feels more comfortable in the company of black cops. He feels more at ease with them and he is more willing to open up to them (p. 215). In terms of color, the black officer is much more effective. In most instances, he functions better. Black officers understand the problems in black communities better than most white officers. They have a better rapport with the people. Take a guy with a knife, for example. The black officer is in a better position to get the guy to drop the knife without having to use his gun. Black cops better understand the situation. The white cop may shoot much quicker. Also, white officers may feel that something is of major importance, while the black officer sees it as minor most often (p. 212).


21

While logic indeed suggested that the strategy of assigning black officers to black neighborhoods benefited the residents of those areas, it nonetheless seems to have served as a thinly veiled opportunity for police departments to exercise even more troubling forms of discrimination. Thus, beyond the simple argument that black officers related to black citizens better than white officers, the probable truth of the matter was that working in ghettoes was regarded as an undesirable duty among all officers so that letting this task fall to blacks served as a means of escape for whites. Even white rookies seem to have been held in higher esteem and treated better than the most senior black officers. If blacks wanted to do “real” police work, the white officers argued, then they would have to start working in the least desirable neighborhoods which, it just so conveniently happened, were predominantly black. Hence the following additional comments in the words of black officers themselves: I don't think you should assign mostly black officers to black areas when you have other officers who are getting the same pay (Leinen, 1984, p. 173). It’s discriminatory. It’s simply unfair to the black officer who is assigned here strictly on the basis of his color. Supposedly, you can deal better with the people in the community. However, I don’t go along with that. Cops should be trained to handle any situation in any neighborhood. They feel that you have to saturate black areas with black cops. Well, white officers should be trained properly to work here. Besides, I feel cheated somehow if I have to lock up blacks all the time (Leinen, 1984, p. 173). Based upon the preceding narrative remarks and brief historical review surrounding initial efforts to integrate the law enforcement profession, it becomes clear that early black officers were often subjected to discrimination at the hands of their employers who assigned them almost without exception to perform foot patrol in exclusively black neighborhoods. Some of these officers strongly resented the fact that they were being exploited in such a manner. Others, however, were more realistic in their assessment of this practice, acknowledging that they were probably far more effective than their white counterparts could ever be in dealing with the unique crime

22


problems and cultural concerns prevalent among ghetto residents. Unfortunately, the practice of segregated patrol assignments was not the only form of discrimination early black officers faced when they first came on the job. They also confronted informal policies of differential treatment in the distribution of other duty-related assignments and requested transfers from one command to another.

Differential Treatment in the Distribution of Assignments and Transfers Given the history of differential treatment between the races with regard to segregated patrol assignments, it is perhaps not surprising to also find the perception among black pioneer officers previously studied by both Alex (1969) and Leinen (1984) that white officers always got “first shot” at the most desirable duty assignments. What was often left over for black officers were the least desirable or - in their own words “shit” details. Primary among these tasks was, of course, foot patrol and its accompanying responsibilities as compared to other types of police work such as investigations and other specialized details (Alexander, 1978; Griffin, 1975; Hawkins & Thomas, 1991; Kelley & West, 1973; Kuykendall & Burns, 1980; Sullivan, 1989). For example, most plain-clothes assignments including detective work were routinely given to whites over blacks. Only in instances where it was necessary to have an officer who could easily “blend in” with others were blacks allowed to participate in undercover operations (Sullivan, 1989). Even then, many officers who were utilized in such a manner frequently complained that their service in this capacity was overlooked when it came time for promotions despite noteworthy results in the face of considerable risk to their personal safety. Consequently, many black officers who were even temporarily reassigned from patrol to investigation units felt as though their assignment to work undercover on the basis of their race was exploitative. On the other hand, being excluded from undercover work in a white neighborhood based on the argument that one would readily “stand out” may have been accepted by many blacks as a practical reality. Thus, just as a white undercover officer would be easily identified as an outsider in an all-black neighborhood, so too would a black undercover officer be quickly spotted in an all-white area. There certainly may have been mixed emotions and responses to the practice among officers studied by Alex (1969) and Leinen (1984) on the matter, but one’s perspective may


23

have boiled down to whether or not he was given an opportunity to voice an opinion or, rather, forced into the role without any say. Accompanying the dual concern that black officers were “locked into” ghetto neighborhoods and that white officers always got “first shot” at all of the good assignments was the perception that transfers from one unit or command to another was more difficult for them than whites. In other words, it was firmly believed that the career path for white officers was far more flexible than their own unless, of course, exceptional circumstances arose requiring their temporary involvement or reassignment (Charles, 1991). Several of the officers interviewed by Leinen (1984) commented on the issue of racial disparity in requested transfers: And then on top of this there are white cops who put in 57’s (transfer requests) to get out of Harlem for one reason or another. This, you see, is possible. There’s black officers who put in 57’s to get out and they can’t. I don’t know what you would call it, but I personally feel that the black cop who finds himself locked in a black precinct while white cops move around freely is being discriminated against twice (p. 80). I worked with a guy a few years ago, a friend of mine. His thing was car stops, good stops. He knew cars inside and out. He accumulated in a few years well over a hundred collars for stolen cars and forged licenses and registrations . . . All he wanted was a shot at the Auto Squad. He got a few interviews he told me, but never got in. He also had a clean record, never had any problems that I know of . . There was no reason why this guy wasn’t transferred to this outfit. He felt personally that it was because of prejudice on the part of the white lieutenant who interviewed him. His attitude now is ‘fuck it’ with everything. When I see him all he talks about is getting out in 15 (years) (p. 59). By more than one account, there were many specialized units of operation within the NYPD that nonetheless remained exclusively white. One of Alex’s (1969) officers, commenting on this problem, noted:

24

Career Experiences of African American Police Executives …[h]ave a homicide squad in Manhattan North where 80 percent of the homicides are Negro. They don’t have any Negroes assigned! They had one who asked out because of the treatment he received. There was one fellow who insisted on going there but he never got in. So he got disgusted and so he went sick on an old injury. He forced the issue where they either had to put him in or drop him and they found a reason not to accept him. So he played sick on this old injury. And now he has a nothing detail (p. 110).

In sum, once black officers had been “locked in” to certain assignments, it was virtually impossible for them to get out. Sure, they could apply for a transfer, but chances were that white supervisors responsible for making such decisions would reject it. In fact, it was almost as though an unwritten policy prohibited black officers from either transferring out of or into certain assignments. This perception was touched upon by another of Leinen’s (1984) officers who asserted: Transfers from, say, Harlem to midtown or Queens precincts, they are difficult to come by. Blacks are placed in Harlem and that’s where they stay, most of them anyway. The department has an unwritten policy about this. I think this is discriminatory (p. 80) Given the apparent level of displeasure among these early black officers with the informal policy that white officers always got “first shot” at the good assignments while they were left with the “shit details,” it seems prudent to also consider the perceived importance of membership in a dominant group as a prerequisite for receiving certain job-related perks or favors. Accordingly, attention is given to the influence this factor is believed to have had upon early efforts to integrate the profession.

Membership in White Cliques as a Prerequisite to Receiving Certain “Perks” Whether it was the belief that they were always being given “shit” details or that transfers and special assignments were more easily obtained by white officers, a common perception among the black men interviewed by both Alex (1969) and Leinen (1984) was that such


25

practices were deeply rooted in favoritism exercised by influential white supervisors seeking to reward their friends. In essence, black officers knew that as long as white bosses had a say in such matters, that first preference would almost always be given to a white officer before it would fall to them. This pervasive view was given substantive meaning by several officers, four of who separately commented: I guess it’s just a gut feeling I have about how blacks are generally received. Take something like precinct assignments. Sometimes details are not posted on the board; they are passed from mouth to mouth. White guys who become aware of these details somehow tell friends who are also white and blacks get shafted in the end (Leinen, 1984, p. 64). Blacks, I don’t feel are treated equally. I’m not sure whether it is racial discrimination or not. It may not exactly be racial discrimination as it is defined in a dictionary, but discrimination by personal contact . . . An example, if there are two cops who put in for a special detail, the white cop will get it, whether he merits it or not. Why is that? They have people in the right places . . . Friends do favors for friends, and white cops have friends in the right places to do favors for them. That’s what it boils down to (Leinen, 1984, p. 64-65). If you are the boss you can keep anyone out. The Irish are the bosses. It’s an Irish job and they want to keep it. They can’t stop you on the promotion jobs, because you take a test and the marks are posted, so everyone knows. But they can stop you from getting into the detectives, Youth Division, and Plainclothes (Alex, 1969, p. 111). There are Sergeants who go home with white cops in car pools. Blacks are not involved in that type of thing. The sergeant will give the detail to the white cop he rides with first. The black cop will be the last to be considered even when he’s more qualified (Leinen, 1984, p. 69). Clearly, the foregoing comments suggest the existence of a pervasive belief among the black officers interviewed that the distribution of rewards, privileges and favors depended to a large extent

26


upon membership in a white group or clique. Since black officers often lacked close personal ties with key white officers, they were at a distinct disadvantage when it came to competing for desirable assignments. Given this, it seems only natural that black officers would take measures necessary to document such instances of favoritism in order to prove a case of racial discrimination. Doing so, however, apparently proved to be more difficult than initially thought as indicated through the narrative comments made by at least two officers interviewed by Leinen (1984): So in effect what you really have is just a different way of discriminating against black cops. And what makes it all the worse is that you really can’t claim discrimination because you really can’t prove it. But people downtown and even some of the C.O.’s think that they’re on top of the situation. They don’t hear the complaints so they think things are on the up-and-up (p. 65). It’s just more subtle now. It’s not quite right out in the open as it was in the past. What has happened is that they just painted it a different color, that’s all. It’s the same thing, has the same effect on black cops. What do I mean? Years ago a black cop didn’t bother to put in for a detail. He knew right up front that he would be turned down, so he didn’t even bother. Today, there is a feeling that the department can no longer do that, there are laws now against discrimination. So now they exclude you ‘unofficially’ by letting the roll call man make up assignments . . . He generally picks men for details, sometimes with the sergeant’s approval. Naturally everyone involved is white so they naturally pick friends who are also white (p. 67).

Evidence of Differential “Trust” in the Ability of Black Officers Having gotten a proverbial “foot in the door” and finally allowed to do some actual police work, black officers nonetheless continued to experience other forms of discrimination on the job. For example, black officers were only allowed to wear their uniforms while on-duty and required to change into civilian attire before leaving at the end of a shift. (Kuykendall & Burns, 1980; Rudwick, 1962). Black officers


27

were also prohibited from wearing their uniforms even while testifying in court (Bayor, 1992). In an autobiography describing his experiences as Chief of Police for the City of Atlanta from 1932 - 1972, Herbert Jenkins (1973) notes that not only was he partly responsible for the integration of colored officers into the southern city’s all-white force, but he was also directly responsible for their supervision. Interestingly, Jenkins explained that black officers in his department were prohibited from wearing the uniform while off-duty in order to protect them from white citizens who had all along objected to the idea of giving the men weapons and enforcement authority. Restricting the time and places that black officers could wear their uniforms was, according to Jenkins’ explanation, a simple method for preventing any embarrassment that might occur in the event of a racially motivated altercation. Jenkins did not, however, provide an adequate explanation for the fact that in his city and numerous others across the country, black officers were not allowed to work out of the same building as whites. In fact, this rather absurd rule extended so far as to deny black officers entry to police headquarters even for purposes of conducting official business (Kuykendall & Burns, 1980). Instead, early black officers were frequently required to change into and out of their uniforms in the basement of the local YMCA or some other location specifically set aside for their use (Bayor, 1992; Cashmore, 1991; Lardner & Reppetto, 2000). Finally, black lawmen were also limited in their powers of arrest and detention over white suspects while on patrol (Alex, 1969; Alexander, 1978; Charles, 1991; Kuykendall & Burns, 1980; Sullivan, 1989). To illustrate this point, Rudwick (1962) conducted extensive research on the status of black officers in Southern jurisdictions and found that there existed great variation in the extent to which they were authorized to take white violators into custody. In some jurisdictions they had no power whatsoever over white offenders of any sort, while in others they were required to call for assistance from a white counterpart who would “officially” effect the arrest. In essence, black officers in these jurisdictions were relegated to nothing more than mere witnesses when the case went to trial. In still other jurisdictions Rudwick (1962) found that black officers were allowed to take whites into custody based upon the felony-misdemeanor distinction. Only in the most progressive and liberal of jurisdictions were black officers legally allowed to effect full arrests without needing the permission or assistance of a white officer. In the event that a black officer ever

28


overstepped his legal bounds in dealing with white offenders - say by issuing a summons - he would face certain punishment at the hands of his white superiors generally in the form of standing guard duty for an extended period of time - a detail regarded as less desirable than having to work foot patrol (Griffin, 1975; Reaves, 1991). It should also be noted that the lasting effect of restricting the arrest powers of blacks early on seems to have resulted in limiting opportunities for future advancement since they never received credit for making the arrest - a factor frequently given considerable weight in making promotion decisions (Rudwick, 1962). Finally, black officers who were lawfully attempting to take white violators into custody were sometimes held directly responsible for sparking large-scale riots protesting the power they had been given. Following an altercation involving a black officer and intoxicated white violator in Meridian, Mississippi, a white public official was quoted as saying “Negroes ought not be put in a position to discharge constabulary functions which it is proper for white men to exercise” (Wharton, 1947, p. 167-168).

General Observations Regarding the Early Treatment of Black Officers Based upon the preceding historical review, it becomes readily apparent that black officers were treated substantially different than white officers during the early years of professional integration. In particular, black officers were almost exclusively assigned to patrol black neighborhoods. This practice was, of course, premised on the idea that they would naturally “blend into” the ghetto environment better than white officers (Sullivan, 1989). Whether this segregated deployment strategy was truly intended to satisfy the black community and help resolve some of its enduring crime problems or, instead, there were more sinister motivations at work such as seeking to relieve white officers of having to deal with colored residents, early black officers eventually became conditioned to accept the fact that whites were more likely to have first shot at all of the “choice” assignments. Accompanying this belief was, of course, an apparent sense among these officers that they had been intentionally given undesirable assignments on the basis of race alone and that the distribution of rewards and privileges depended largely upon membership in a white group or clique. Since, however, it was difficult for early black officers to document instances of favoritism and discrimination stemming


29

solely from membership in a particular racial group, there was little official recourse they could pursue. About the only time black officers were allowed to briefly venture away from their assignment to ghetto neighborhoods was if they were temporarily needed to perform a special undercover assignment. Even then, black officers were apt to feel as though they had been exploited on the basis of their race and that the department did not want them to occupy certain positions unless doing so was politically expedient for its purposes. The service and sacrifice of black officers who were temporarily allowed to serve in such capacities was often overlooked, especially when it came time for promotion. Over time, it seems only natural that early black officers treated in this manner would come to believe that departments trusted them less than white officers. On top of all this, black officers were not well received by their white colleagues. Accordingly, it is toward a more complete understanding of their adjustment to this particular dimension of the job that attention is now directed.


CHAPTER 4

Black and White Officers Together on the Job

Since the earliest efforts aimed at integrating the profession, white officers have resented the presence of blacks on the force and openly said so (Griffin, 1975). In fact, it is rather ironic to find that the most far-reaching and enduring forms of discrimination against black officers has always seemed to stem from their white counterparts rather than the public where one would naturally expect to find the greatest degree of outward rejection. Thus, contrary to what one would expect, white officers did not initially accept the idea of working with black officers either one-on-one or in general. Since, however, they were required to work closely with one another during these early years despite their personal dislike for each other, it becomes important to understand the true nature of both their working and social relationships with one another. In the early days of professional integration, it was not uncommon for white and black officers to experience very little if any personal contact with one another (Cashmore, 1991). White officers rarely spoke 31

32


to black officers unless absolutely necessary but, when they did, racial slurs were freely used (Alexander, 1978). Clearly, the notion of the two races interacting with one another in social settings away from the job was almost unheard of. This is not surprising when one considers Myrdal’s (1962) finding in his study of race problems during the 1930’s and 40’s that much of the KKK activity in the south was carried out by white law enforcement officers. More recently, Stratton (1984) found that police officers constituted approximately ten percent of the Klan’s membership in California. Given these data, it is not surprising that the relations between blacks and whites on the job have been characterized as a source of continual tension (Reaves, 1991). Common among many white officers of the day, as well as among members of the general public, was the concern that if too many blacks were appointed as officers they would overtake the profession or that the department would become all black (Alex, 1976; Bayor, 1992). Similarly, white police officers seem to have been threatened from early on by the possibility that widespread introduction of blacks into the profession would diminish what little amount of social prestige was then associated with the job (Alex, 1976).

Black Officers as “Tokens” In a later study aimed at better understanding the beliefs, perceptions and attitudes of white NYPD officers, Alex (1976) discovered that much of the hostility toward black officers stemmed from a perception that they were being hired on the basis of racial preference rather than merit. White officers therefore viewed the department as sacrificing the long-term integrity of the merit system simply to obtain some shortterm public relations advantage with the black community. The net effect of this effort on behalf of many departments, as well-intended as it may have been, was to establish the view among white officers that blacks did not really deserve to be on the job and that they were, by and large, simple “tokens” without the same rights as those who had come in through a more rigorous system (Alex, 1976; Jones, 1977). As one black officer commented: ...They look at the Negro as an oddity. How did he get on the job? He has a hell of a nerve wanting to be a cop, they say. This is the sort of thing. So the Negro who works in this


33

department gets the feeling that he is working for the John Birch Society. Isn’t that a hell of a note? (Alex, 1969, p. 94). A white officer had this to say regarding the lowering of test standards and the hiring of more black officers: Today, to get more blacks on, they have relaxed the standards - not relaxed, they have lowered the barriers all the way on this, and I honestly don't feel that is right. No one did anything for anybody at any other time to have them get the job insofar as relaxing the barriers to let them in. And we always had a decent police force. But today they have become so idealistic that we have to give this fellow a chance because he has been held down...It’s no favor to him. It’s no favor to the Department. And it certainly is no favor to the people of the city. And I think it’s wrong and they have no business doing this (Alex, 1976, p. 34-35). Still another white officer commented on the lowering of standards and, in doing so, illustrated the latent hostility directed toward those including blacks - that the changes were intended to benefit: We have to let deprived people on the job, they tell us, because they didn’t have the same opportunities . . . . And because of politics they are letting in the dregs of humanity in my opinion. And they are going in there and saying because they were deprived we have to make it easier for them on the tests. That wasn’t my fault they were deprived. I had nothing to do with that because they were deprived (Alex, 1976, p. 35) By far the most telling indication that blacks were regarded as “outsiders” by white officers and did not really deserve at all to be on the job was revealed in the final remarks of one of Alex’s (1976) white officers: Now I don't hold any bias or prejudice against anybody if a man can take the test and pass it and become a police officer. If a man can qualify under the same test that I had to qualify under, fine. That makes him a good citizen of good character.

34

Career Experiences of African American Police Executives But don’t turn around and use that double standard which they say we use on the street on us! This is the real double standard. They are going to take a man who is an outsider to us...He is not a peer by any sense of the word. The man’s educational background, the man’s moral background, his character and everything. He just doesn’t fit the suit. And if you don't fit the suit you can't wear it (p. 37).

The fact that many black officers were admitted into the profession under standards different than those which had been previously applied to earlier generations of white personnel clearly set them up to be both viewed and treated as “tokens.” Under such circumstances, it seems only natural that many black officers might feel as though their white counterparts did not view them as equals. To the extent that this perception held true, relations between new black and existing white officers were doomed to failure - or at least a substantial amount of interpersonal strain - from the outset, despite the presumably wellintentioned efforts of departments to counteract such racial animosities.

Social Acceptance and Racial (In)Tolerance Not only would the reactions of white officers to the appointment of blacks sometimes closely border on mutiny (Alexander, 1978), but such hostility frequently manifested itself in other forms. For example, black officers were sometimes “framed” and even cited or arrested for minor violations of department policy in an effort to initiate disciplinary actions aimed at their eventual termination (Alexander, 1978; Lewis, 1996). In still other instances, white officers working in patrol cars would actually try to run over black officers working foot patrol as they attempted to cross the street. The enduring tension between black and white officers was most commonly manifested, however, through generalized feelings of contempt, aggression, resentment and antagonism between one another (Alex, 1976). In some instances these emotions erupted into verbal and physical confrontations between black and white officers to the extent that fist fights or “Mexican standoffs” where guns were actually drawn and pointed at one another actually occurred (Alexander, 1978; Cooper, 1980; Lewis, 1996).


35

The pervasive sentiment among white officers that black recruits were “outsiders” who did not really deserve to be on the job could not help but adversely affect their informal relationships with one another. Simply stated, black officers were unwelcome around whites not only while on duty, but especially while off duty (Griffin, 1975). Even though they had to work with another to accomplish a common objective, that friendship often ended at the station house door when the tour of duty was over. As two black officers explained: It’s wonderful in the station house. We are going to apprehend this criminal together - wonderful. We are going to do police work together - wonderful. But off duty, that’s different. It’s funny. When you walk into a room full of white cops getting together for a few drinks with their wives, there’s a very cold feeling (Alex, 1969, p. 87). As long as you are working side by side you treat each other as policemen. You act in a professional manner. But ten minutes after 4:00 p.m., the majority of the white cops go their way and the Negro cop goes his way (Alex, 1969, p. 87). In fact, segregation within the profession was so pronounced that members of both races organized separate fraternal groups (Alexander, 1978; Dulaney, 1990; Hahn, 1971). Quite ironically, however, it may very well have been the exclusion of black officers from white social activities such as these that facilitated their eventual integration into the contemporary landscape as professionals with considerable political influence. Evidence for this unexpected turn of events is to be found in Dulaney’s (1990) historical review of the Texas Negro Peace Officer Association’s (TNPOA) evolution. Originally, the TNPOA formed as a social group out of the exact situation previously described - segregated policemens’ balls to benefit the same charitable organization. Eventually, through association with black officers from other jurisdictions, the TNPOA helped form other black police organizations at the local level across the nation. According to Dulaney (1990), although the TNPOA was not as effective in realizing its own ideals and objectives, it nonetheless provided an impetus for the formation of what would later become several of the more active and leading organizations at the local level working to secure full rights, privileges and protections for black officers.

36


Despite this and other evidence in the available literature indicating that segregation between the races was primarily a product of white officers’ wishes not to associate with black officers either on or off duty, such was not always the case one hundred percent of the time. Rather, Alex (1976) reported narrative evidence that integration of the profession and a general improvement in relations between officers from different racial backgrounds was even inhibited by the actions of black officers themselves. That is, the assumption has always been that black officers actually desired to work with white officers when, in fact, quite the opposite appears to have been the case as indicated through one white officer’s comments: It works both ways. Blacks refuse to ride with whites and whites refuse to ride with blacks. It is all over the city. In other words, this attitude does not reflect a particular precinct or neighborhood. It reflects the general attitude towards keeping the races apart (Alex, 1976, p.154). The typical knee-jerk response to the fear among white officers that blacks might overtake the composition of the department or even the entire profession manifested itself in the formation of what Alex (1976) has described as “white enclaves” that effectively limited or “monopolized opportunities” (p. 45). Although law enforcement has traditionally been dominated by white males for decades or even longer, the white backlash among its conservative members has served to maintain the partial exclusion of blacks from attaining full recognition and acceptance among their counterparts (Hahn, 1971). Certainly, from time to time, a black and a white officer might strike up a conversation with one another but rarely, if ever, did the discussion seem to focus on sensitive issues such as race relations based on the perception that such topics were best left unaddressed for the sake of maintaining morale. Alternatively, a white and black officer may have even become friendly with one another on the job, but it seems as though many of these friendships ended at the station house door or at the close of a tour of duty (Griffin, 1975). At best then, black and white officers simply tolerated one another and it was almost unheard of for black officers, at least in large numbers, to successfully enter into and become accepted by the dominant white group. While these and other forms of discriminatory behavior would be considered shocking by today’s standards of political correctness, one


37

would hope that we have come much farther in our relations between the rich mixture of races that comprise our modern law enforcement forces. Sadly, however, there exists clear evidence that such problems persist within and to a certain extent may even be tacitly condoned by some departments. Specifically, the Report of the Independent Commission on the Los Angeles Police Department edited by Warren Christopher (1991) not only found evidence of racist computer transmissions by LAPD officers, but also uncovered other more troubling evidence of discrimination such as supervisory tolerance of openly racist groups, internal threats against the lives of minority officers, and the unregulated use of racial slurs.

The Development of Mutual Trust and Confidence Between Black and White Officers There is at least one notable exception to the general rule of enduring racial animosity between officers of the two races. Specifically, there seems to have been very little doubt that they would go to the aid of one another when the “chips were down.” In fact, this exception to the persistent theme of racial tension between the two groups seems to be about the only common ground that effectively united them. According to Alex’s (1969, 1976) interpretation of narrative comments made by officers he interviewed, members of both races viewed the public as a common enemy. Thus, the classic battle between the police and the criminal element formed a basis of cooperation virtually unparalleled in other areas of their working relationship. It is thus somewhat refreshing to find that even though they did not share much social interaction or mutual respect for one another, black and white officers were able to set aside their differences when it came to assisting one another in dangerous situations. In fact, many black officers went so far as to indicate that they would still assist a white officer even if they had knowledge that he held racist or bigoted views. The willingness to set aside their racial differences and assist one another in such dangerous situations speaks volumes about the character of these men, one of who directly commented: To me, it’s a funny thing about being a policeman. A guy in my office I know he is a bigot. I have told him so. But if anyone should attack him I would go to his aid. I would hope

38

Career Experiences of African American Police Executives he would come to my aid if I was in trouble. You have to stick together for self-protection and self-preservation. They say strength in unity against the common enemy. The public! (Alex, 1969, p. 89). There is no problem about whether he will come to my aid. This is the necessity of the job. The job you hold makes it a fraternalistic dependence. Like I say, you work by yourself as one and patrol vast areas, a minimum of six blocks. You are there by yourself. And if you need aid, he will come to you and you will go to him. There is a definite dependence, and race and color don’t enter the fact. You know if this wasn’t so, the whole structure of the thing would fall apart. There may be resentment but you have got to help one another (Alex, 1969, p. 88).

General Observations Regarding Early Relations Between Black and White Officers Despite encouraging evidence suggesting that most officers were willing to set aside their racial differences and assist one another when the “chips were down,” it nonetheless remains safe to observe that inter-racial tension has existed in some form or another since widespread efforts to integrate the profession were first undertaken. The root of this racial animosity seems to stem, in large part, from the perception among white personnel that black officers were “tokens” who came on the job under less rigorous selection criteria than those previously applied to other groups. Certainly, this attitude on the part of whites made it exceedingly difficult for black officers to be accepted not only while on the job, but off duty as well. About the best that could be said was that members of the two races generally tolerated one another and that any cordial relationship they shared ended at the stationhouse door when their tour of duty had come to an end. Within this general context, it is perhaps not at all surprising to also find there existed little social interaction between members of the two races during off-duty hours. When the two groups did socially mix with one another - say at an annual celebration or fund-raiser - black officers would later admit that they had felt especially uncomfortable. With little disagreement, such an environment is not generally conducive to improving or sustaining positive relations between the two groups.

CHAPTER 5

Black Officers and the Black Community

As noted in briefly reviewing the historical role of blacks in American law enforcement, logic strongly suggested that assigning them to patrol ghetto communities would provide a simple solution to the pressures and concerns of residents regarding the unsatisfactory quality of police service and abuse they were experiencing at the hands of largely white police departments. However, acting upon such simple reasoning and blindly pursuing a strategy of race-based assignments without giving considered thought to the historical relationship that had previously existed between the black community and white police eventually lead to the failure of this strategy for reasons that become readily apparent in hindsight.

39

40


The Origins of Tension Between Police and the Black Community Historically, law enforcement has been used to control the perceived threat to majoritarian society that was posed by aggressive minority groups. Central to this balance of power in a democratic society is the right to vote (Alexander, 1978). Unfortunately, white police officers were frequently used to keep blacks from exercising their Constitutional right to vote, thereby preventing them from influencing the delicate balance of political power in their direction (Hawkins & Thomas, 1991; Reaves, 1991). White officers were also routinely deployed in large numbers throughout black communities in an effort to control their daily behavior, whether or not it conflicted with the law. In doing so, they strictly enforced curfews as well as routinely stopped, interrogated, searched and beat minority citizens without justification (Cooper, 1980; Palmer, 1973). Not infrequently, such aggressive tactics resulted in the tragic killing of many innocent minorities by the police who acted with near impunity and were never held responsible for their actions (Cooper, 1980; Cross, 1964; Hawkins & Thomas, 1991; Rabinowitz, 1976). It did not take long before the police began to symbolize for blacks the power of life and death frighteningly reminiscent of the Old South. From this early antagonistic relationship, the white dominated police forces eventually came to be viewed with considerable disdain and fear in many black communities as slave overseers and an occupying army intent on protecting white property, middle-class values and the status quo (Alexander, 1978; Bannon & Wilt, 1973; Cooper, 1980; Cross, 1964; Hudson, 1990; Margolis, 1971; National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders, 1968; Palmer, 1973). Clearly, such an impression and reputation was far from conducive to creating a positive environment between the police and those they were intended to serve. An alternative to resolving the conflict that inevitably ensued between the white police and black citizens was clearly and urgently needed. One apparent alternative for overcoming the dislike among black citizens for white officers was to altogether remove their presence from the ghetto community, instead only entering the area when summoned (Lewis, 1996). Unfortunately, this ill-conceived strategy was almost as harmful to police-community relations as that of total occupation because the perception then arose among blacks that the police were callously unresponsive to their needs, dismissive of the growing crime


41

problem, and especially liberal in the use of force to gain compliance when summoned (Hawkins & Thomas, 1991). In response to the failure of this option, agencies eventually came to realize that another viable strategy for dealing with the problem was to be found in assigning black officers to ghetto areas based on the assumption that they were more capable of responding to the cultural needs and crime problems of their own community (Cooper, 1980; National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders, 1968). Surely, it was reasoned, minority officers could do a much better job of policing ghetto neighborhoods and residents than could their racial counterparts who were mostly foreign to the subtleties of black culture (Bannon & Wilt, 1973; Kelly & West, 1973; Sullivan, 1989). Additionally, from the perspective of the department’s administration, it was considered more desirable to see black officers policing their own rather than whites having to do so (Alex, 1969; Cashmore, 1991). This logic was elaborated upon by a white officer whose thoughts on the matter likely represented prevailing attitudes of the time: In order to understand the neighborhood and the people you have to put that type of person in there. And what better type of person than the type of person who just got out of there? I went out on the job with cops who were colored in Harlem. And nobody would talk to me. [You mean black people who live in the neighborhood? Alex probed] Yeah, they wouldn’t talk to me. He understands. He was brought up that way. And he knows exactly what their problems are better than I would. And I’m sure that I could probably understand something up on Fordham Road better than he could (Alex, 1976, p. 146). Still another officer attested to the virtual ineffectiveness of his own as well as other white officers’ efforts to gain compliance and respect from black civilians: I’ve worked with black cops and not just in Brooklyn, but when I was in the Bronx. I used to fill in the South Bronx on a regular basis during the summer and I felt that black cops were listened to more than I was. In other words, I can go to a situation in a black neighborhood, in a bad neighborhood as we put it, and the people won’t respect you. They call you a

42

Career Experiences of African American Police Executives pig and a mother-fucker. So you can't communicate with them like a black cop can. A black cop can go over and say, ‘Listen, brother!’ If you go over and say, ‘Listen, brother’ they laugh at you (Alex, 1976, p. 147).

Rejection of the Black Officer’s Authority Over Black Citizens Given the overwhelmingly negative historical relationship that existed between the largely white police department and black society, the plan of exclusively assigning black officers to work in ghetto neighborhoods was doomed to fail from the outset. At the core of this unanticipated failure was the fact that relations between the minority community and the police department were already strained beyond such simple repair. Rather quickly, two realizations were drawn - first, an officer’s skin color did not matter because he was viewed as an unwelcome intruder to be regarded with the same dislike as his white predecessors (Cooper, 1980). Secondly, black citizens did not necessarily prefer black policemen to whites as had been expected (Kuykendall & Burns, 1980; Wallach & Jackson 1973). Accordingly, an examination of the hostility among black residents toward officers of their own race becomes necessary in order to fully appreciate the working world experiences of these men.

Typologies of Black Police Despite the fact that black ghetto residents in many instances altogether disliked the police - irrespective of an officer’s race (Bannon & Wilt, 1973) - hostility toward black lawmen in particular runs deep. Minority officers, finally given the opportunity to serve the police department and their community were in for a rude awakening. In very short order it was discovered that they were no longer welcome in the black community. Rather, they were viewed as traitors, turncoats, sell-outs, lackeys or pawns (Cashmore; 1991; Cooper, 1980; Lardner & Reppetto, 2000) among their racial peers. Even worse, they soon came to represent a new threat as an enforcer of the white man’s law and the middle-class establishment (Alex, 1976; Bannon & Wilt, 1973; Cooper, 1980; National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders, 1968; Palmer, 1973). Frequently exposed to outward intra-racial


43

hostility as the target of verbal insults such as “Oreo,” “Uncle Tom,” “Massa’s Man,” “House (or White) Nigger,” and “Mr. Charlie’s Boy” (Alex, 1976; Bannon & Wilt, 1973; Cooper, 1980; Lardner & Reppetto, 2000; Palmer, 1973; Runnels, 1991), black officers began to assume what Cooper (1980) has described as one of five distinct social roles while performing their duties in the ghetto. These roles are given the descriptive terms “pariah,” “Judas goat,” “sacrificial lamb,’ “cool cop’ and “ghettoized cop.” The Black Officer as a “Pariah” While both black and white police officers expect to be viewed with a certain amount of disdain by those they must control, black officers in particular seemed to face considerably more dislike from ghetto residents than did their white counterparts. It is this heightened level of animosity generated toward black officers by minority residents that lead Cooper (1980) to describe their social status as that of “pariahs” men forced to live between two social roles in which they are put down by their own racial group while at the same time aspiring to an elevation in status through their employment as police officers (Cooper, 1980). In Cooper’s own words: “Pariah people are in society, but at the same time they are outside of it” (p. 80). It is within this context that black officers entered the ghetto with the collective authority and legitimacy of the police department behind them, while at the same time lacking any true measure of autonomy or power of their own. In essence, they amounted to “nothing” without the uniform or backing of their police peers - To illustrate, the black officer’s pariah status was frequently given verbal description by ghetto residents who may be heard to proclaim: “Yeah, you may have that blue uniform on, but it can't cover your black ass. You’re still nothing but a Nigger, even if you live up there in Scarsdale” (Cooper, 1980, p. 111). This outward rejection of the black officer by his own racial peers clearly stemmed from their perception of him as the worst type of traitor - “he has turned on the group and become an oppressor” (p. 111).

44


The Black Officer as a “Judas Goat” The job of a law enforcement officer, at its very core, is one of brokering essential social services for the community and its residents. Frequently, the police are the only source of assistance available to civilians during evening and weekend hours when other social service providers are closed for business. They operate 24 hours per day, seven days per week, every day of the year, all the while “taking the sick to hospitals, settling domestic quarrels, searching for lost children, directing traffic, guarding school crossings, and doing many other services like directing people to the right kinds of social services that can deal with their problems” (Cooper, 1980, p. 84). This level of service suggests that individual officers do their jobs because they have “an honest beneficence for ghetto residents” (Cooper, 1980, p. 85). However, a more cynical view is offered by Cooper (1980), who likened black officers to “Judas Goats” (p. 84 & 116). The essence of this role was one of leading the ghetto’s “feral children” (p. 85) into further reliance upon the police for assistance while neglecting to resolve the community’s underlying social problems. This dependence gave the police reason to intervene in the otherwise private affairs of ghetto residents, although “they are discouraged from being too helpful or friendly” (p. 117). This emotional detachment from the problems of the black community was difficult for black officers to reconcile, Cooper (1980) argues, since he was constantly expected to represent the ghetto’s residents and their views. The competing demands of emotional separation versus the expected role of representing the ghetto community’s views thus caused black officers to eventually withdraw and turn their backs on racial peers just as Judas Iscariot was depicted in his betrayal of Christ. The Black Officer as a “Sacrificial Lamb” Cooper’s (1980) depiction of the black officer as a “sacrificial lamb” (p. 119) begins with the assertion that “all cops in the ghetto are expendable” in the battle to eliminate crime and drugs. Although it is unfortunate, some officers may die in this effort, but the rewards for making the ultimate sacrifice will come in the form of a funeral with full police honors. In this role, black officers were viewed as being exploited by their departments. Evidence supporting this claim is found in their token inclusion within the profession, not as true crime-


45

fighters like their white counterparts but, rather, as community relations personnel or undercover mercenaries used to spy upon black radicals. When finally given an opportunity to do some real police work, they were assigned only to patrol ghetto neighborhoods based on the logic that they would more easily blend in than white officers with the indigenous population. Serving in these capacities exposed black officers to being “pumped for information” (p. 121) by the department about the sometimes not-so-subversive activities of ghetto residents. Thus, black officers in particular were viewed by their departments as expendable resources to be exploited as fully as possible for purposes of achieving the desired goals by whatever means necessary. The Black Officer as a “Cool Cop” In describing the black officer as a “cool cop,” Cooper (1980) referred to his ability to remain emotionally detached and impartial in performing the job’s official duties. As an employee of a public bureaucracy, the police officer was seen as “cold, uncaring, and without feeling for life” (p. 124). Eventually, the officer’s behavior became highly rationalized and procedural in nature - a condition contradicted by the sometimes high level of emotion accompanying life’s tragic events that occurred in the ghetto. Because bureaucratization had become a popular method for managing public sector organizations, Cooper (1980) speculated that the emotional detachment associated with this style of delivering law enforcement services would eventually filter down to the patrol level and affect the manner in which officers performed their day-to-day duties. Black officers were believed to be most susceptible to accepting these changes on the basis that they had acquired middle class status, values and attitudes. Blind acceptance of such impersonal routinization, Cooper (1980) argued, would only increase the existing level of friction between ghetto residents and black officers, thereby making conditions even more difficult for both to endure. The Black Officer as a “Ghettoized Cop” Cooper’s (1980) final classification was one in which black officers served as a symbol to other blacks that middle class membership was, in fact, attainable. Although not likely to live in the ghetto or view

46


himself as a black person, the ghettoized cop is one who was treated poorly by both the department and the black community - neither accepted him as one of their own. To be ghettoized, Copper stated, meant to be “taken for granted and ill-considered when being considered at all” (p. 126). Specifically, he charged that police departments failed to consider the feelings of their black personnel when assigning them, whether they liked it or not, to ghetto neighborhoods. This lack of consideration caused officers to experience self-pity and lament the bad fortune of being cast back into a prison from which they had already been forced to escape. Returned to walk among their racial peers, black officers soon found that they no longer fit in with the minority community. They must, therefore, “pretend to be black” (p. 127) which, in the long run, often proved unsuccessful. Like the pariah previously described, ghettoized cops eventually become marginalized - rejected by both the white department and their racial peers. “Threatened, squeezed and crushed” (p. 127) by the expectations of both groups, ghettoized cops eventually manifested symptoms commonly associated with extreme social alienation. Like most typologies, Cooper’s (1980) classification and characterization of black police officers as falling into one of five distinct categories probably does not exist in reality. Rather, it is more likely than not that there exists considerable overlap and “blending” between the categories so that it becomes difficult to draw a clear line of demarcation identifying one officer as a “pariah” and another as a “ghettoized cop.” Perhaps the greatest utility of Cooper’s (1980) work is, therefore, to be found in identifying the various pressures to which black officers are exposed as a result of their unique position in society. At the very least it has certainly been helpful in identifying and understanding the causes of animosity and dislike among ghetto residents not only toward the police in general, but that which has been aimed over the years at black officers in specific. Thus, Cooper’s (1980) work helps scholars move one step closer to understanding why there existed within the black community an underlying sense that, above all else, black cops have been unwelcome even in their own neighborhoods (Runnels, 1989). The rejection of black officers among their own racial civilian peers is also illustrated by those instances when ghetto residents summoned the police for assistance and were forced to chose between two lesser evils - talking to a white officer who likely cared nothing about the black community and its crime problem or talking with a black officer


47

who was concerned with ghetto problems yet regarded by its residents as a “traitor” or “sell-out.” Oddly enough, there have occurred instances where black citizens refused to talk to officers of their own race, requesting instead that a white officer be summoned to the scene and take the report (Runnels, 1989). In fact, it has been succinctly noted that “so much hatred can be generated towards black cops by black ghetto residents that white cops can ... be seen as more acceptable by comparison” (Cooper, 1980, p. 112). Surely, such reactions and rejection by ghetto residents must have been perceived as a figurative slap in the face by black officers and a crushing blow to their efforts to pacify the membership expectations of both social groups.

Coping With Competing Demands for Loyalty At its height, the social rejection of black officers by their own racial peers became particularly acute when their financial situation required them to live in the same area they patrolled. In these instances, black officers soon found themselves walking a very fine line between two competing loyalties. One officer who found himself in just such a situation obtusely explained: There is no doubt that the white officer has a rough time in a Negro neighborhood. On the other hand, with a white officer, after he finishes his 8-hour tour of duty, he can go home and forget what he has done - maybe what damage he has done. The Negro police officer quite often is stymied along those lines because predominantly he is living in a Negro neighborhood. Because of this fact, he will get the same problems twenty-four hours a day. The Negro officer will get complaints from Negro citizens of what a white officer has done to so-and-so. You can either shrug your shoulders and walk away - you can try and appease them and tell them that this particular officer was only trying to do his duty. You can try to sympathize with them. When you do this, this doesn’t satisfy them as far as their animosity toward the white police officer is concerned, but makes you more friendly toward your own kind. But it is a situation of living with your own kind too - and you can’t say it was this white officer’s fault. Because if you say that he was at fault in a particular

48

Career Experiences of African American Police Executives situation, what you do is help reinforce their hostile feelings toward you as a police officer. The more you take their position regarding the situation - that is, the more you side with them, the more hostile they become toward the cop, and indirectly, you give them fuel to hate you (Alex, 1969, pp. 136-137).

When one closely reads between the lines of this statement, it should become readily apparent that black officers experienced a unique form of dual tension between their roles as members of the black community while at the same time serving as enforcers of the law. In an attempt to avoid the social discomfort certain to occur in the presence of one’s racial peers, black officers were forced to adopt various techniques of avoidance, deception and social withdrawal. At the most innocuous level, black officers would avoid contacts with those whom they had previously shared social relationships prior to joining the force. This was especially true when an officer and former friend occupied social roles on opposite sides of the law. This solution to the problem of role tension through avoidance was given meaning by one officer who related: I know several police officers who live in Harlem. They grew up there and many of the people they arrest are people they grew up with. One of my best friends while I was going to high school is a junky today. I see him very often but he will not speak to me. He won’t speak to me because of what I am, and because of where he is today. He told another friend of mine that he would never speak to me because of that. This is a sad commentary. Now as far as I am concerned, I don’t know how I will react if I saw him do something wrong. The possibility of catching him either in the act of stealing, or possessing narcotics is very good. But I don’t know what I would do. This puts me in a bind. I would have to make a decision to go one way or the other when we do meet in such a situation. What way I would go - I don’t really know (Alex, 1969, p. 137). An alternative strategy for alleviating this role tension involved the use of deception. This approach allowed officers to avoid social interactions that had the potential to become particularly uncomfortable when others discovered the true nature of their employment. The use of


49

calculated deception to achieve this objective was perhaps best illustrated by an officer who explained: Sometimes they get into big discussions with civil rights and they want my opinion as a Negro and as a policeman. And then I discuss it with them. There are times when I wish they didn’t know I was a policeman. Perhaps, certain people think that because you are a policeman you are a big man. But I don’t want to be a big man, I want to be something else. So if I am at a party and people don’t know who I am and they ask me I tell them I am a cab driver or something like that (Alex, 1969, p. 139). At worst, the social rejection caused by incongruence between their occupational status and minority group membership resulted in what can only be described as a form of “self-imposed isolation” (Alex, 1969, p. 139). Quite simply, black officers who were uncomfortable with the use of avoidance and deception as techniques for counteracting the tension created by their role conflict simply negated the problem by withdrawing from social interactions altogether. Two officers described this solution: I kind of keep away from people. I don’t want to get too involved (Alex, 1969, p. 139). No one can hurt you unless he is your friend. And you won’t let people become your friends (p. 139). Finally, the social rejection that black officers experienced arising from their official capacity as enforcers of the law began to flow over into their personal lives. Not only did the black community at large view them with contempt, but they eventually began to lose contact with friends whom, for one reason or another, they were no longer able to relate to. One possible explanation for this final phase of social separation from others may be attributable to the fact that their professional status as police officers became their predominant social role while their status as a friend, relative or acquaintance assumed secondary importance. This transition was underscored by an officer who explained:

50

Career Experiences of African American Police Executives As of last summer the regulations were changed to make us wear our uniform to and from work. So now they all know. It’s not now a matter of first being Jimmy. This is out now. Now there are always police problems that come up after duty. There is always conversation along police lines. Where we used to talk about baseball or football, it’s now talk about police work. They don’t let me forget who I am. In this neighborhood I thought I would be better off because so many cops live in the neighborhood. And I figured people would be used to having a cop as a neighbor and accept you as a neighbor. In my old neighborhood where I was making about twice the salary anybody else was making they attached a status to the job. My new neighborhood, where there are a lot of cops and professionals, I thought it would be different in atmosphere than it is (Alex, 1969, p. 138).

General Observations Regarding Early Relations with Black Civilians In light of these accounts, it may be said that being a black police officer assigned to patrol ghetto neighborhoods was not always an enjoyable or easily accomplished task. Rather, it seems as though black officers were, in many instances, more disliked and disrespected than even the most abusive white officers who routinely dispensed law and order within the area through unrestrained use of their nightsticks. In essence, black officers were regarded by many of their racial peers as traitors - men who had sold out or abandoned their racial identity to the white political establishment solely for the purpose of achieving an elevation in social status. Constantly being ridiculed by their racial peers as pariahs, Judas goats, or sacrificial lambs (Cooper, 1980), black officers quickly became aware of the deeply-entrenched feelings of disrespect and contempt held for them by ghetto residents. Only in the rarest of instances did law-abiding blacks seem to truly appreciate the altruistic sacrifices of these men and look up to them with respect as symbols of accomplishment. Based upon early qualitative interviews conducted by both Alex (1969) and Leinen (1984), there begins to emerge a sense that black officers often found themselves occupying an especially awkward social position - one causing them to experience tension as a member of the black community while at the same time being an enforcer of the white


51

man’s law. This underlying role conflict surely created frustration in the minds of these men who, by their own admission, would sometimes take their anger out upon black suspects who refused to acknowledge or respect their lawful authority. With little room for disagreement, the relationship between black officers and black communities was not off to as prosperous of a start as many white law enforcement administrators had hoped. Despite evidence that the seemingly logical plan of assigning black officers to black neighborhoods in an effort to improve police-community relations within those areas had not worked as planned, little empirical attention was given to the early career experiences of black officers from other departments during this early period of integration. In part, this inattention may be due to the specious assumption that the experiences of black officers from other jurisdictions were not that different from those reported by both Alex (1969) and Leinen (1984). As a result of inattention to these issues by scholars of policing, it is generally unknown if the animosity between these two samples of black officers and their civilian counterparts also existed in other settings outside of New York City. Finally, there is also a need to determine how widespread tensions actually were between black officers and ghetto residents from other jurisdictions. Such an assessment may contribute to a better understanding of how many of today’s veteran black officers view their professional obligations and responsibilities to the communities and residents which once so outwardly rejected them.


CHAPTER 6

Black Officers and the White Community

Blame for denying black officers the opportunity to work outside of ghetto neighborhoods was not solely the product of administrative discrimination, although this explanation cannot be altogether denied. Rather, much of the responsibility for sluggish integration of the profession can be traced to fear among white citizens. Whether reasonable or not, the idea of allowing blacks to serve as police officers was an obvious source of concern for many average white citizens, particularly those in the South (Jenkins, 1973). Most feared was, of course, the possible arrest of a white female by a black officer (Bayor, 1992). A more generalized and pervasive concern stemmed from the possibility that a white suspect might not acknowledge a black officer’s arrest powers or as quickly heed his verbal commands thereby resulting in an interracial altercation (Rudwick, 1962). Clearly, the KKK and other groups protested the notion of extending such awesome powers to black males who, they argued, might act out of rage against whites for 53

54


past injustices if given the opportunity (Sax, 1968). Still others, even less outwardly racist, simply feared that as a result of their newfound power over whites certain segments of the black population would become “uppity” and overtake one of the final bastions of white supremacy (Bayor, 1992; Jones, 1978; Moss, 1977; Palmer, 1973; Rudwick, 1960; Stokes, 1973). Within this context it is perhaps not surprising to again discover that black officers of earlier generations not only faced rejection from the minority communities they sought to both serve and represent, but experienced much the same reaction from whites. In some instances, what was feared would happen actually took place - white citizens rejected the legal authority of black officers. Such refusal obviously constituted an enduring and sometimes dangerous source of tension for both parties.

The Black Policeman as a Source of Curiosity As noted by Alex (1969), “a fundamental problem facing the Negro policeman in white neighborhoods is how to maintain his position and integrity as a policeman while adjusting to the role definitions made by his clientele” (p. 123). As a result of this dilemma, black officers who worked in white neighborhoods were generally required to adopt one of two social roles largely defined and controlled by the reactions of white citizens - on the one hand they were viewed as a source of public curiosity to be closely scrutinized for behavioral weaknesses or, on the other hand, considered a “non-entity” to be dismissed as lacking any legitimate source of power. Because they presumably gave shape and meaning to the working world experiences of early black officers, these externally-imposed role definitions deserve further reasoned consideration. Because their overall numbers were relatively small at the time, previous generations of black officers assigned to perform patrol duties in white neighborhoods were easily recognized - very few whites were accustomed to seeing blacks in their neighborhoods, let alone one wearing the distinctive uniform of a police officer. Being set apart from the crowd on the basis of skin color, while at the same time serving in an official capacity historically occupied by whites, black officers quickly became viewed as a source of curiosity for the white citizenry. In this role as an object of interest, black officers figuratively operated under a microscope of public scrutiny so that every action or reaction


55

on their part was examined for conformity to official police regulations and unspoken public expectations. Deviations from these standards were quick to be acknowledged and amplified, making the duties of these men even more difficult to perform. In response to being asked why he was less comfortable working in a white as compared to black neighborhood, one officer interviewed by Alex (1969) explained: You may feel right from the start that the inhabitants may be more critical of you because of maybe their first contacts with you...it is like the feeling of a Negro being seen when he has never been seen before. You can sense when you get extra observation. By being critical I mean that the whites are more awed and more eager to see what my actions would be, what actions I would take. They want to evaluate you and see what type of protection they are going to get (Alex, 1969, p. 116117).

Rejection of the Black Officer’s Authority Over White Citizens Based on long-standing and relatively well-defined differences in the accepted social roles between members of both races, early black lawmen were sometimes also treated as “non-entities” or “second-class” officers by white civilians who refused to acknowledge their legal power. Thus, rather than seeing black officers as a source of legitimate social control and authority, some whites responded to them on the basis of their race rather than occupation.7 Black officers were, therefore, regarded as Negroes first and as officers of the law second. Clearly, this reaction presented the potential for an altercation to erupt between a black officer and white violator who did not see “eye-to-eye” with one another on the respective social roles each should assume. One officer, commenting on such tense encounters, stated: Every once in a while you would find a situation when a person would refuse to give you his license, or he would throw the license down on the ground for you to pick up when you stopped him for speeding or something like that, and he

56

Career Experiences of African American Police Executives was white. Or a person would tell me if I didn’t have a shield or gun what would I do? (Alex, 1969, p. 118).

Even more disturbing, but hopefully less frequent, were the types of racial comments directed at black officers by white violators as related in the following first-hand account: White people might say to me: Why don’t you arrest some niggers. I want to be arrested by a white man (Alex, 1969, p. 118). Despite displays of racial animosity, some black officers felt that white civilians would, over time, grow to accept them simply on the basis of routine exposure. Another officer best expressed such optimism regarding this eventual acceptance: I feel if he works a steady post where people see him every day and get to know him, there are no problems. But white people are not accustomed to seeing a Negro as a policeman. And because of that, the white person will have reservations about the Negro policeman. You get the stares, for example, from people who are not accustomed to seeing you. They look at him as a Negro policeman and not as a policeman (Alex, 1969, p. 117). One would hope that with time such views would fade and black officers would be more fully defined and accepted by the white community on the basis of their occupation rather than skin color. Whether or not this has been the case, evidence exists suggesting that pockets of racial animosity directed at black officers as legitimate figures of authority in the eyes of white civilians continues to exist. The memoirs of Runnels (1989) illustrate this point. For example, even as a senior officer (FTO) responsible for training rookie officers in the field, it was not uncommon for white citizens who summoned the police to acknowledge and interact exclusively with the white rookie officer (even though that officer lacked the requisite experience), while at the same time completely ignoring the more senior black officer who was actually in charge of the call. Similarly, interactions took place in which white citizens refused to acknowledge a black officer’s authority, insisting instead that a white officer be called to the scene to resolve


57

their problem or complaint (Runnels, 1989). An illustration of refusal to accept an officer’s assistance based on skin color rather than occupational role was also related to Alex (1969) by an officer who met with resistance while responding to an emergency call for assistance: A woman was pregnant. The husband meets you at the door. Wife is ready to have a baby. You call the ambulance. Hasn’t arrived yet. Time is getting short. You say: Let me see your wife. He says: you want to see my wife? You say: Lady, did your water break? The man looks at you and says: Look, I don’t want you talking to my wife that way - I don’t even want you looking at my wife. Why in the hell do they send people like you here anyhow? He tells the sergeant that he doesn’t want me to look at his wife. The sergeant tells him that I am a police officer. It goes on like that (p. 130). As absurd as it may seem, some whites flatly objected to the idea of a black officer assisting them even in an emergency situation. Not only was this objection apparent in the preceding case, but in others as well: I’ll give you some examples of this. My partner and I are on radio motor patrol duty. It’s an ambulance call. When you arrive (and this example is in the Yorkville section of New York) you find a low income family of Irish background and the grandmother is hurt with a broken arm. We respond, my white partner and I, and the ambulance which has a white driver and negro attendant. The daughter and son-in-law are present at the scene. And the patrolmen are attempting to help her. She turns to the Negro patrolman and says to him, ‘Don’t put your hands on me!’ I can’t touch her. Can you imagine that. I come to her aid, and she tells me to get my hands off her (Alex, 1969, p. 178). There is an emergency call. A nurse lived in the East 80’s. four radio cars respond. That means sixteen patrolmen. There are fifteen white patrolmen and one Negro, me. my car caught the call, and my partner and I dash into the apartment. The woman is in a night gown. She is hysterical. But when she sees me she goes into complete shock! Ironically, I had to get

58

Career Experiences of African American Police Executives all the information from her because we got the call. Things were running through my mind that the assailant was a Negro and this was why she responded to me, but he was white. She almost screamed again when she saw me. there I am with my brass buttons and my shield. It’s obvious I’m a policeman but she goes back into shock. I keep telling her I’m a policeman. I actually ran downstairs and told my partner that I didn’t want to have anything to do with the case. But I went back up. I have dozens of such incidents (Alex, 1969, pp. 178-179).

Another officer who participated in the same study speculated on what might occur in the event that he was required to use physical force to subdue a suspect in a white neighborhood: One night, around Fulton Street where I was working, this fellow was kicking this girl under the car. I subdued him and walked him to the corner of Nostrand and Fulton, a wellknown corner and very active. I tried to get this guy to put his hands up while I searched him. He was a Negro. When he didn’t comply, I hit him with a stick on the forehead, causing a small cut on his eyebrow. To my surprise, the local citizens, the Negro citizens, said good. That is what these young punks need. Now, why am I saying this? Well I don’t think I would be able to hit someone with a stick in a white neighborhood as I did to this Negro in a Negro neighborhood. I don’t think the reaction of citizens would have been the same. What would they have seen? I think they would have seen a Negro hitting a white person, not a Negro cop hitting a rowdy. They would be more apt to accept it if a white cop hit a white person (Alex, 1969, p. 124). This real-world insight clearly suggests that the use of force by a black officer against a white suspect would likely be perceived and responded to considerably different than if the roles were reversed - that is, a white officer using force against a black suspect. The potential for adverse public reaction, combined with a perception that the actions of black officers were more closely scrutinized by white citizens and the department alike, may have resulted in a black officer who mistreated a white civilian getting into more trouble than a white officer who had mistreated a black civilian.


59

Perhaps on a more encouraging note, limited narrative evidence is found within the available literature suggesting that black officers indeed commanded a certain measure of respect from white civilians. As one officer reported: When I worked in an all white neighborhood, I never had any trouble. I think the Negro community, however, will accept the white person more readily than the white community is accepting the Negro. I worked for six months in an all white area with another Negro cop. You tell citizens to move, they move. You tell him to put that coin in the meter, he runs over there and he does it. Why? Because they don’t know you. You are a novelty. You stand out. This standing out, and you being strange, make them move. Many white people, if you tell them to move, and if they don’t - you assert yourself. I’m also a policeman you try and tell them. If you don’t respect me for what I am, then respect my uniform (Alex, 1969, p. 125). At a minimum, this comment implies that some white citizens reacted to the directives issued by black officers out of fear for the unknown - that is, the average white citizen probably knew little about blacks in general and even less about how a specific officer would react if defied. As a result, they were inclined to act upon his instructions rather than push their luck with what amounted to them as an entity whose limits were largely unknown. Even if white civilians did not respect black officers on the basis of their race, there remained the possibility that they nonetheless respected the uniform and the authority it symbolically represented. Based upon this presumed respect for the uniform and not necessarily the person by which it was physically occupied, there likely existed a portion of the white community that cared more about an officer’s ability to simply “get the job done” than they did about his specific race. In the eyes of some liberal-minded whites, ability may have been the more important overall criteria for judging an officer rather than his race. However, it is believed that the extent of such progressive thinking among members of the white community was limited at the time given the greater frequency with which more negative accounts of interactions between the two groups appear in the literature.

60


General Observations Regarding Early Relations with White Civilians Based upon review of the literature regarding the nature and quality of their early interactions with white civilians, it may be said that many black officers experienced considerable social rejection from this influential segment of the general population. In some instances, this social rejection even took the form of outwardly refusing to acknowledge their lawful authority. To a large extent, the foregoing accounts also suggest that many white civilians viewed black lawmen as second-class officers unworthy of their full respect. In white neighborhoods black officers were initially judged on the basis of skin color - their master social status was that of Negro first and police officer second, while the exact opposite seems to have held true in colored neighborhoods where their master social status was that of “cop” or “oreo” first and “brother” second Presumably, these formative social interactions and externally imposed role definitions negatively affected the manner in which black officers viewed their early relationships with white civilians. Interestingly, however, little attention has been devoted to assessing how widespread these negative interactions between black officers and white civilians actually were. Rather, our knowledge of the nature and quality of interactions that occurred between black officers and white civilians is limited to the experiences of those officers from the New York City Police Department interviewed by Alex (1969) and Leinen (1984) several decades ago. This point becomes especially critical when one considers the fact that many blacks who entered the profession during the initial period of integration when friction between black officers and white civilians was believed to be at its worst have since ascended to positions of executive leadership within many of the nation’s law enforcement agencies. In the absence of knowing just how widespread the social rejection of black officers actually was, it becomes difficult to fully appreciate the manner in which these professionals view their current obligations to respond to the political demands of a population which once so outwardly objected to and defied their authority.

CHAPTER 7

Institutional Barriers to Widespread Promotion

In addition to the preceding accounts illustrating the manner in which some police departments treated black officers during the early years of integration, there exists credible evidence suggesting that these pioneers also confronted institutional discrimination in the context of performance evaluations and disciplinary actions (Alexander, 1978; Charles, 1991; Kelley & West, 1973; Kephart, 1954 & 1957; Sullivan, 1989; Trostle, 1992). The most notable study aimed at examining perceptions of differential treatment between the races in these two areas was conducted by Beard (1977) who surveyed 947 black officers from the Washington, D.C. Metropolitan Police Department. Primary among the findings reported was that ninety-one percent of the males and 78% of the females expressed the belief that white supervisors treated black and white officers differently than one another (p. 51). Furthermore, an overwhelming 91% of the almost 1,000 black officers felt that discrimination was the major factor accounting for differences 61

62


in job performance ratings between the two races (p. 51). In essence, the major complaint at the time was that white supervisors failed to give black officers the credit they deserved for a job “well-done.”

Differential Treatment in Performance Evaluations and Reprimands Leinen (1984), in conducting interviews with black officers from the NYPD, uncovered evidence of this concern. At least two different officers related their experiences in the following terms: Yeah, this is the type of job that a black cop can work and work and never get (a good word) from some white sergeants. With these bosses you rarely hear, ‘You did a good job’ (p. 57). There are a few things that I could point to. For instance, there’s plenty of good work by black detectives in my office, and rarely does it go noticed by the boss. He just doesn’t seem to feel it’s important to tell a black detective he did a good piece of work or maybe handled a sensitive situation well. There’s just no communication here at all. In other places I worked, it didn’t seem to matter what color you were, you did the job and you heard about it. It was a good feeling you had. I think all the black guys in the office felt the same way (p. 58).

Black Officers as “Targets” of Racially Motivated Reprimands Not only is it disappointing to find that black officers felt as though they were sometimes denied positive recognition for having done a good job, but even more troubling to learn that they may have been intentionally “targeted” to receive more than their fair share of negative recognition - namely in the form of racially-motivated disciplinary charges (Alexander, 1978). Generally speaking, disciplinary charges are filed when a fellow officer, supervisor or member of the public accuses an officer of violating some formally stated rule, policy, practice or law established by the department, administrative or legislative body. There


63

often exists, however, considerable discretion on behalf of an officer’s supervisor in determining whether or not formal disciplinary charges will be filed or if the matter will instead be dealt with on a more discrete, informal basis. Of course, there was concern on the part of early black officers that they were routinely denied the benefit of such discretion so that they were “brought up” on disciplinary charges more often than not by racist supervisors who had a bad habit of overlooking the same violations committed by white officers. For example, Alexander (1978) reported that in 1892, forty-two officers within the NYPD were brought up on disciplinary charges. Forty-one white officers were retained and only one officer - the sole black in the entire group - was fired. This concern was also manifested in the research of Beard (1977) who found that 84% of the black officers he surveyed felt as though departmental rules and regulations were unequally enforced between the two races (p. 51). As if this finding alone were not bad enough, the claim has also been raised that black officers were more likely than their white counterparts to face official sanctions when accused of violating departmental rules and regulations. Here again, the research of Beard (1977) revealed that 88% of his survey respondents believed they were more likely to receive disciplinary sanctions than white officers who had committed the same types of rule infractions (p. 51). A small number of black NYPD officers interviewed by Leinen (1984) agreed with this perspective, one of who stated: There is no doubt about it. Black cops get more complaints than white officers. It happened to me and two other black guys. This is because the complaint will be entertained downtown (p. 86). In some instances, the filing of disciplinary charges may not have even been the product of actual misbehavior on a black officer’s part but, rather, the result of some perverted “contest” or “clash of egos” between two or more supervisors of opposite races. To illustrate just such an occurrence, one officer reported to Alex (1976) an exchange that he witnessed between a black and a white supervisor. In essence, the two verbally disagreed over what the black supervisor believed to be the racially motivated filing of disciplinary charges against his officers by the white supervisor.

64

Career Experiences of African American Police Executives A colored and a white sergeant were drinking together, and the colored sergeant said to this white sergeant that you guys are giving out complaints to the colored cops, and I think I’m going to give out some complaints to some of your white boys now. And this white sergeant told him, ‘Well, they are the only ones that I’m catching in the gin mills. That’s why I’m giving out complaints.’ So the white sergeant is saying to him, ‘What are you trying to say?’ And the Negro sergeant says, “I think I’m going to give out some complaints to white boys.’ And the white sergeant says, “If you want to play that game, well, it’s ridiculous.’ But the colored sergeant thought that they were getting complaints because they were colored” (p. 158-159).

Reprimands as the Result of Factors Other Than Race The validity of Beard’s (1977) empirical analysis and the claim that black officers were unfairly targeted by white supervisors for disciplinary action has, however, been called into question. In particular, Leinen (1984) discovered that a majority of the officers with whom he discussed this topic clearly rejected the notion that blacks were more likely than whites to receive disciplinary action. In fact, 14 out of the 16 men Leinen (1984) interviewed on this dimension of their careers expressed the view that most disciplinary cases were attributable to what they described as “personality clashes” (p. 86) between black officers and white superiors. How the two “got along” with one another as well as how the supervisor viewed the officer’s “work ethic” were more important considerations than an officer’s race in determining whether or not disciplinary charges would be filed (Leinen, 1984). As one officer who shared this view commented: I have no feelings that black officers receive more complaints, although there are plenty of prejudiced white supervisors. Complaints are individual. If a supervisor knows that a guy is a good worker he might speak up for him if he screws up. If a guy is a general fuck-up, no matter what his color, he will get one [a complaint] (Leinen, 1984, p. 86). Finally, it is encouraging to note that some of the officers interviewed by Leinen (1984) felt as though they had a greater number


65

of administrative remedies at their disposal than were previously available. To illustrate, one officer commented: If a boss gives a black officer a complaint, he (the officer) has recourse, and I don’t think a supervisor would want to have a weak complaint aired today, especially when it involves a racial issue. He would hesitate to give a complaint that would not seem to be fair, but he would turn around and give the black officer a shit detail (Leinen, 1984, p. 86).

General Observations Regarding Differential Treatment in Performance Evaluations and Reprimands While the independent research efforts of Beard (1977), Alex (1969), and Leinen (1984) provide collective support for the contention that black officers were treated differently than whites when it came to the related issues of performance evaluation and disciplinary action, the external validity of this information is constrained to the extent that it is based upon accounts provided by officers from only two departments - Washington, D.C. and New York City. Consequently, little is known about the more pervasive beliefs, perceptions and attitudes of black personnel who served in other departments and historical periods regarding these arguably important career dimensions. At a minimum, the existing research suggests that when asked about their views on such issues black officers will not only express consensus that they are evaluated more harshly than their white counterparts, but that discrimination by white supervisors is the major factor accounting for differences in performance ratings between the two groups. Also expected to be uncovered is the perception that white officers are more likely to get away with violations of rules and regulations as well as a sense that it is difficult to substantiate instances in which disciplinary actions are racially motivated. To be sure, an up-to-date and more comprehensive understanding of these and other issues is necessary in order to assess how far, if at all, the profession has progressed toward the goal of minimizing not only perceptions but actual instances of racial discrimination in the application of performance evaluation criteria and discipline.

66


Obstacles to Promotion If, as claimed, black officers were intentionally targeted by white supervisors to receive more than their fair share of poor performance ratings and disciplinary actions as compared to whites, then it should not be surprising to also find among those populations previously studied the belief that they were further discriminated against when it came to being considered for advancement (Charles, 1991; Kelley & West, 1973; Kephart, 1954 & 1957; Lardner & Reppetto, 2000; Trostle, 1992). Within the context of merit-based promotions, the individual most qualified to perform the tasks associated with the position to be filled should be the one that is selected for advancement. Unfortunately, law enforcement has not always adhered to this seemingly logical principle of administration but, instead, sometimes operates under principles of favoritism and preferential treatment so that promotions are granted on the basis of group membership and personal affiliation. Given the fact that law enforcement has and continues to be a largely white-dominated profession, it would therefore be particularly naïve to deny that members of this numerical majority have in the past made use of their administrative “clout” to promote those most like themselves while “passing over” others who were different (Alexander, 1978; Felkenes & Schroedel, 1993). Because black officers shared little in common with white supervisors during their first few years on the job, it is not difficult to see how and why they may have been the victims of racial exclusivity and discrimination in the context of promotion decisions.

Promotions as the Result of Knowing the “Right People” in the “Right Places” Guided by the assumption that promotion decisions during the early years of racial integration were largely based upon knowing the “right people” in the “right places,” Leinen (1984) explored the perceived influences of favoritism, group membership, personal affiliation, and informal social interaction. In essence, many of the officers interviewed acknowledged that because favoritism in its various forms was not exclusively restricted to law enforcement but was also known to occur in other lines of employment, about the only thing that could be done was to accept the practice as a “way of life” that pervaded virtually


67

every occupational position within the department. Also uncovered during the course of these interviews was a belief among officers that the dispensation of “rewards, privileges and favors” depended to a large extent upon membership in white groups or cliques to which black officers had been denied access. The comments provided by several officers illustrate very well the foregoing perceptions: It’s my estimation that there is still discrimination in a lot of areas. It now depends upon friends in the precinct and officers of higher rank whether you’re going to get a detail or possibly put in for the shield . . . The situation strictly depends on your relationship with some higher up. The tricky thing here, and I speak for a lot of guys you talked to, is that there are too few black bosses. And a white boss might be more inclined to do a favor for a white guy, just as a black boss might do for a black cop. What it boils down to, the bottom line, we need more black bosses (Leinen, 1984, p. 69). The climate of the job has not really changed that much. I can remember some years ago when there was [sic] outright instances of discrimination against black officers in all areas. Now it’s done more underhandedly. [How is that? Leinen asked] Well, for instance, competent black officers in my precinct haven’t been assigned to anticrime patrol. This I observed personally. White sergeants who are in the majority choose white cops for these assignments when they come up. They drink with them after work and they live near them, so naturally who do you think they are going to pick when an opening in anticrime comes up? And it really doesn’t matter much whether the black cop is more suited for the assignment. You see, blacks don’t ordinarily get involved with whites off duty. They generally don’t fraternize with white sergeants after work and they certainly don’t travel home with them (p. 68).

68


Rationalizing Preferential Treatment in Police Promotions At this point, astute readers will note that in certain instances black officers may actually have benefited rather than suffered from the existence of racial favoritism in the promotions process - Take, for example, the hypothetical situation in which a black administrator is responsible for making a promotions decision involving one or more black officers with whom they may have previously worked or shared informal social relations. Given this possibility, it was interesting to find on the part of those black officers Leinen (1984) interviewed an ability to rationalize the role of preferential treatment in the promotions process. The observations of several officers demonstrated exactly how they viewed favoritism in practical, easy-to-understand terms: What you’re asking me, are blacks discriminated against more? There isn’t any of that as far as I’m concerned. This is based on my own personal experiences. People who have the ability to move others usually move friends, who also happen mostly to be of the same color. Cops do favors for guys they know, guys they ride with, guys they travel with. The only catch here is that it’s not always the best guy who winds up filling a special slot. But this has always been the way on the job and it will probably always be that way. You can’t fight it. Cops who like each other stick together and look out for each other. I’ve seen blacks moved up, favors done for black cops by white bosses who are their friends. So it’s not really a racial thing. . . . I remember after a few years on the job, I was really pissed when I saw mostly white guys getting special favors, anticrime, tit jobs [choice assignments] in the precinct. Then I saw that this is the way things are done all over, not just here in my precinct. As I said, you can’t fight it so you accept it. You just hope that eventually you make the right friends too (Leinen (1984, p. 74). Things are pretty much on the up and up now. The department doesn’t practice discrimination by choice. I may have thought that it was policy years ago. Maybe it was then, but not really today. You have bosses and even patrolmen in certain positions who can manipulate other officers into good jobs.


69

But I don’t look at this as racial discrimination anymore. It’s really present in all types of areas . . . favoritism. I think in your language, nepotism . . . and it goes for black cops as well today, to be honest. Black bosses choose blacks who are friends or belong to the Guardians, you know for special assignments when they can (Leinen, 1984, p. 74).

Difficulty in Substantiating Claims of Preferential Treatment When favoritism could not be rationalized as “a way of life” or accepted as part and parcel of the job, black officers quickly learned that complaints about racial exclusivity were difficult to substantiate. As one officer explained the situation to Leinen (1984): It’s just more subtle now. It’s not quite right out in the open as it was in the past. what has happened is that they just painted it a different color, that’s all. It’s the same thing, has the same effect on black cops. What do I mean? Years ago a black cop didn’t bother to put in for a detail. He knew right up front that he would be turned down, so he didn’t even bother. Today, there is a feeling that the department can no longer do that. There are laws now against discrimination. So now they exclude you “unofficially” by letting the roll call man make up assignments . . . He generally picks men for details, sometimes with the sergeant’s approval. Naturally everyone involved is white so they naturally pick friends who are also white. Still another officer who felt he had been discriminated against commented on the difficulty associated with proving his case: I was promised the gold shield first in 1965 then in 1966 and 1968. I finally got it in 1972, well after some white cops who worked with me. This I feel is because there is discrimination against black cops. I can’t prove it. It’s not something you can prove easily but that’s how I feel - case closed (Leinen, 1984, p. 81).

70


Other Informal Criteria Influencing Promotion Decisions Another subjective factor long suspected of influencing whether or not blacks were promoted centered upon the general prohibition against “rocking the boat” on sensitive or taboo issues. Because it was absolutely essential for officers of both races to maintain a civil on-thejob relationship with one another, the “norms of racial etiquette” (Alex, 1976, p. 145) dictated that they avoid discussing any controversial topic that might drive a wedge into their already tenuous relationship. Among those topics generally considered “off limits” for discussion between black and white officers were perceptions of discrimination on the job and the civil rights movement. Although there was no written or formal policy prohibiting them from engaging in discourse on these matters, black officers who verbally criticized their white supervisors did so at the risk of jeopardizing their chances for promotion. Black officers were, in essence, expected to conform to white values in order to be considered for advancement in the organization. As one officer summed up the situation: For a black to move in the detective bureau (a promotion in some departments), you couldn’t be outspoken. It seems like you have to play some sort of predesignated role, and if you don’t play this role, if you criticize the choices your boss makes for you, let us say, promotions or assignments, then they sort of delete you, ‘X’ you out (Leinen, 1984, p. 90). There is also a suggestion within the available literature that black officers had to “perform substantially better” than whites in order to be considered for promotion (Alexander, 1978). This conclusion is drawn from Leinen’s (1984) subjects, one of whom who noted: The only time the black can get assignments to good details [sic] is if he is needed for the job. That goes for street crime units and the bureau. Otherwise there is discrimination when it comes time to be considered for promotion. There is always a question mark as to the black officer’s competence . . . The black officer always seems to be passed over when it comes to promotions. He must be three times as good as the white cop to even be considered (p. 88).


71

More direct and to the point was another interviewee’s comment: . . . This equality thing is bullshit. The black officer has to be ten times better because the department is concerned about his performance. A lot of bosses feel that blacks are dumb, stupid and have to be led by the hand. This is a misconception . . . So you have to work ten times as hard to show that you can handle some mickey-mouse detail (pp. 88-89). Even in instances where black officers performed better than their racial counterparts on examinations and other promotion-related criteria, there was still no guarantee that they would not be “passed over” in favor of a less-qualified white candidate (Griffin, 1975). As one interviewee related his experience to Leinen (1984): There is definitely discrimination in promotions in grade too. I was put up for grade five times in about eight years. Each time I was in the top third. Three times a white detective who was under me in evaluations got grade early (p. 83). While it cannot be altogether denied that black officers were sometimes passed over for promotion on the basis that they did not belong to the “in crowd” or had perhaps “rocked the boat” by raising certain issues despite being clearly qualified for the position, there is to be found within the available literature a less sinister explanation for why they have been historically underrepresented at supervisory ranks within the profession. This alternate explanation is rooted in the logic that blacks are still relative “newcomers” to police work - so new, in fact, that they have not yet had the opportunity to be promoted in the same proportion as whites who have been on the job a great deal longer (Leinen, 1984; Sullivan, 1989). Given the recentness of their widespread integration into the profession, combined with the fact that turnover at supervisory, command and executive levels is slow by nature, it is clear to see why so few blacks are found in these types of positions. With the passage of time and the gradual retirement of existing white supervisors, it is expected that a greater number of blacks will be promoted to fill these vacancies. Until this shift occurs, however, the collective ability of blacks to establish widespread bases

72


of power necessary to influence the distribution of rewards and promotions is likely to remain limited.

General Observations Regarding Differential Treatment in Promotion Decisions Based upon review of the available literature, it is possible to draw several meaningful observations from the comments of those black officers interviewed by both Alex (1969) and Leinen (1984) regarding perceptions of fairness in law enforcement promotion decisions. For example, most of the officers interviewed by these two researchers did not place a high degree of confidence in the notion that promotion decisions were based upon the formal criteria of individual merit and ability. Rather, more weight was given by these men to informal criteria such as membership in a particular group or having connections with the “right people” in the “right places.” Also apparent was a sense that personal contacts with the potential to translate into future opportunities for promotion developed in informal settings away from the job. Unfortunately, early black officers were often excluded from these social activities thereby precluding them from developing the important relationships that might later help them obtain a promotion. Still other narrative comments indicated that it was difficult to substantiate claims of racial favoritism due to the fact that such practices were carried out in very subtle ways. Perhaps realizing the difficulty of altogether eliminating favoritism from promotion decisions, there is evidence that some early officers began to rationalize its existence. In simple terms, they acquiesced that having connections with those who occupied positions of power constituted a legitimate means for achieving upward mobility. At the same time, however, they recognized that other factors sometimes intervened in the decisionmaking process. Among these were expectations that they refrain from “rocking the boat” on sensitive issues, conform to “white values,” and substantially outperform others against whom they were competing for promotion. Finally, the question remains unresolved as to whether or not their status as relative “newcomers” within the profession is widely accepted as an explanation for their numerical under-representation in various supervisory capacities.


73

The Importance of Maintaining Positive Relations with White Superiors Given the belief among early black officers that speaking out on sensitive issues had the potential to limit future opportunities for promotion, combined with the perception that white supervisors intentionally targeted them for disciplinary action, the relationship between members of these two groups could only be described as one that was tenuous at best. In essence, some black officers felt as though they received less support from white supervisors than other officers. Evidence for this type of concern is apparent in one officer’s comment to Leinen (1984): Treated equally? That’s not an easy question, because basically I feel yes and no. On the job level I think yes. When you drop down to the individual level, say with some white sergeants, I would be inclined to say absolutely not. What I’m directly thinking of here relates to a couple of experiences I personally observed with white sergeants who turned their backs on black cops who I guess you might say found themselves in a ticklish situation . . . I feel that if you’re black and this one sergeant in particular is working, you’ve got a problem. You’re on your own. I get the feeling that if I personally ran into a ticklish situation and he knew it was me involved, he’d be in the wind or if I was dead wrong he’d look to stick one up my ass [prefer formal department charges]. Fortunately, we don't have this problem anymore because he just got transferred (p. 60-61). Interestingly, however, the perception among black officers that white supervisors did not equally support them may not have been as widespread as initially suspected. Rather, some of the men interviewed by Leinen (1984) indicated that the degree of support they received - or failed to receive - from a supervisor was dictated by the nature of the situation more than anything else. As one officer explained his thoughts on the issue: Again, I’m not sure whether it’s color that matters here so much. Both groups I think have common problems that are

74

Career Experiences of African American Police Executives founded in fact . . . I think it boils down to the fact that some bosses today haven’t had the experience some of the younger men have had. They seem to disappear when the going gets rough. They don’t back their men at all. How many supervisors do you see today going down to the trial room to testify on behalf of a cop brought up on bullshit charges? I’ll tell you, very few. They’re afraid to stick their necks out. They’re afraid they’ll lose their spot [detective superior designation] if things go bad. This is especially true with those bosses who have the money [e.g., a detective sergeant or lieutenant who is receiving special compensation because of his supervisory position within the detective bureau] (Leinen, 1984, p. 61).

General Observations Regarding Relations with White Superiors In sum, Leinen (1984) identified contradictory perceptions within the sample of black officers he interviewed regarding the degree of administrative support they received from supervisors of the opposite race. For example, some of the officers felt as though white supervisors intentionally failed to provide them with administrative support in “ticklish” situations solely on the basis of their racial differences. A second group of officers rejected this accusation, reasoning instead that any real or perceived lack of administrative support by white supervisors was largely a function of the situation rather than any racial differences between the two parties. This apparent contradiction in the existing literature presents an interesting research question in need of further examination and reconciliation. Specifically, it should be determined which of these two beliefs has been most prevalent over the years in the minds of another sample of black officers. A second dimension in need of further exploration is the extent to which black officers preferred interacting with supervisors of their own race in problematic situations. Finally, whether or not early black officers believed that approaching a white supervisor with a problem placed them at risk for being viewed in a negative light remains to be explored. Assessing each of these dimensions more fully promises to provide interested scholars of policing with a better understanding of how black officers viewed their early working relations with supervisors of the opposite race.

CHAPTER 8

A Tentative Notion of the Black Executive’s Working World

Although the available literature has given interested scholars a narrow glimpse into the early working world of black law enforcement officers, it has provided virtually no insight whatsoever into the collective experiences of those pioneers who have since ascended to positions of supervisory, command or executive responsibility within what continues to be a largely white-dominated profession. Simply stated, the existing literature has altogether failed to explore the beliefs, perceptions and attitudes of black supervisory, command and executive personnel on a number and variety of arguably important as well as theoretically interesting career-related dimensions. The reason for this lack of attention may be at least partly traced to the erroneous belief among scholars of policing that the narrative accounts reported by Alex (1969) and Leinen (1984) were generally representative of all black officers across the nation irrespective of their rank or position within the organizational hierarchy. Careful reading of these and other works, however, provide ample reason to believe otherwise. In fact, the next 75

76


several pages will demonstrate that the career experiences of black supervisory, command and executive personnel have the potential to differ quite significantly from those of line personnel in several key respects. In doing so, readers as well as interested researchers will be exposed to a tentative and hopefully more theoretically complete understanding of the unique career experiences believed to be shared among members of this particular segment within the larger law enforcement community.

Relations with White Subordinates Although the available literature does not specifically address this dimension, it is nonetheless firmly believed that black supervisory, command and executive personnel experience strained relations with subordinates of the opposite race. Indirect evidence for this belief stems, in large part, from earlier reports indicating a strong dislike among white officers for their black counterparts. In essence, astute readers will surely recall from earlier review of the literature that white officers viewed black officers with a high degree of outward contempt and hostility, oftentimes characterizing them as “tokens” that did not really deserve to be on the job. Given this knowledge, it certainly does not require a huge stretch of the imagination to believe that these feelings are even more pronounced among whites toward black superiors. Although the literature has not yet directly proven this point, it may nonetheless be hypothesized that black supervisory, command and executive personnel not only experience trouble relating to white subordinates based upon racial differences with one another, but also have trouble gaining their respect and compliance. Arising from this is a situation in which black superiors, finally given legitimate authority over white subordinates, are perhaps even more vehemently and outwardly rejected than ever before. Because this hypothesis has not yet been acknowledged and fully explored within the available literature by scholars of police behavior, it seems entirely appropriate to suggest that efforts be immediately undertaken to assess the extent to which such strained relations pose negative consequences in the minds of black supervisory, command and executive law enforcement personnel.


77

Relations with White Supervisory Peers By this time, it should be readily apparent that black law enforcement personnel not only experienced considerable rejection from white officers when they first came on the job, but that such problems had the potential to become more exacerbated as these pioneers advanced throughout the organizational or professional hierarchy. In particular, it was suggested in the foregoing section that black supervisory, command and executive personnel would report experiencing strained relations with white subordinates who may very likely view them as lacking any legitimate source of authority. To make matters even worse, black supervisors may experience the same problems in their interactions with white peers of equivalent rank. That is - although the available literature fails to directly touch on this possibility - it seems entirely tenable to suggest that the rejection and social isolation characteristic of early relations between officers of the two races has the potential to “follow” blacks throughout the course of their law enforcement careers as they advance through each level of the hierarchy. Consequently, it is hypothesized that black supervisory, command and executive personnel not only experience isolation and rejection from white subordinates, but that much the same is true regarding the nature of their relations with supervisory peers of the opposite race. Because so little attention has been given to understanding the collective experiences of this beleaguered minority, the extent to which this hypothesis temporally derived from review of the literature actually holds true in the real world remains unknown. In the interest of developing positive working relations between supervisory, command and executive personnel of both races, scholars of policing should strive toward a more complete understanding of this particular career dimension. Unfortunately, the available literature does not provide any empirical data from which a sound conclusion or guidance on the issue may be drawn. It therefore becomes the task of researchers to undertake efforts aimed at better understanding the nature and extent of this particular phenomenon. In the absence of doing so, law enforcement agencies may - if they have not already - become unnecessarily hampered in their long-term effectiveness by allowing interracial tension and acrimony to infect other levels of the professional hierarchy.

78


Other Working World Experiences In addition to the hypothetical belief that black law enforcement personnel at all levels of the organizational and professional hierarchy experience social isolation and rejection from subordinates and supervisory peers of the opposite race, logic suggests they confront the same problems in their relations with members of several otherwise unlikely groups such as black subordinates, the black community, as well as their own families and friends. This expectation is also derived from careful reading of the available literature which, although it does not specifically address the issue, provides astute scholars of police behavior with various indications that such might be the case. To illustrate this point, recall momentarily the reports of other researchers indicating the high degree of contempt that members of the black community had for black police officers. Combine this with the possibility that even black subordinates might view their own black superiors as having “sold out” to the department’s white values simply to obtain an elevation in professional status, and it is not difficult to see how easily it would be to quickly become alienated from these important reference and support groups. In the absence of any direct empirical literature supporting this hypothetical but highly tenable line of reasoning, scholars of police behavior are left not knowing if black supervisory, command and executive personnel actually experience problems of alienation and rejection from members of these arguably vital reference groups. If, as is expected to be the case, they do experience strained relations with black subordinates, members of the black community as well as family and friends, then blacks who occupy positions within the profession’s upper echelon have been left with no choice but to deal as best they can on their own with what can only be imagined as an overwhelming and tragic sense of isolation from the world. Given the potential for such negative consequence arising from a failure to acknowledge this problem, it becomes imperative that interested researchers pursue this hypothetical line of inquiry in such a manner that allows them a glimpse not only into this particular dimension of the working world experiences of black law enforcement supervisory, command and executive personnel, but also those previously identified within the present section.


79

Tentative Observations Regarding the Black Police Executive’s Working World Collectively, the foregoing paragraphs within this section have asserted that black supervisory, command and executive personnel experience strained relations with a number and variety of important groups beyond those previously identified in the literature. In essence, it is believed that members of this beleaguered minority not only suffer rejection and social isolation from white officers when they first enter the profession, but that such problems have a tendency to “follow” them throughout the course of their careers. For example, logic suggests that if white officers on average view black officers as “tokens” who do not really deserve to be on the job, then they are likely to hold the same views about those blacks who occupy supervisory positions within the organizational hierarchy. In fact, this racial animosity may be so pronounced that black supervisors not only have trouble simply relating to white subordinates under their command based upon racial differences, but also find it difficult at times to gain their full compliance. Furthermore, black supervisors are also believed to face ostracism from supervisory peers of the opposite race who might also regard them as tokens and refuse to treat them as equals or include them in social activities. Finally, it is also suspected that black supervisory, command and executive personnel experience strained relations with members of several other reference groups such as subordinate black officers, the black community and perhaps even family and friends. Despite being based upon sound logic, these beliefs have yet to receive serious attention by researchers of police behavior. Given the presumed negative consequences likely to emerge from these strained relations with members of various reference groups, it becomes imperative that scholars acknowledge and attempt to narrow this gap within existing knowledge. Once the nature of these hypothesized relations has been explored, a more theoretically complete understanding of the working world experiences of black law enforcement executives can be developed. Before describing one useful method for achieving this understanding, it is important that consideration be given to one last dimension related to the career experiences of all black law enforcement personnel.


CHAPTER 9

The Research Initiative

Based upon review of the literature combined with limited instances of well-reasoned speculation, there exists a need to conduct research aimed at better understanding the collective career experiences of black law enforcement professionals. At present, information surrounding this issue is largely constrained to two studies involving especially small numbers of participants from the NYPD carried out, at least in one instance, over three decades ago. While undeniably providing scholars of policing with a narrow “glimpse” into the experiences of this beleaguered minority, the results of these two studies have never been confirmed using independent samples of black officers from other departments or historical eras. Consequently, there abounds much information about the experiences of black police officers that, at best, can only be presumed as true. If, however, this “common knowledge” is found to be incorrect after all this time, then scholars of police behavior have committed a grave error by blindly operating under misguided assumptions. To exacerbate this problem, there exists virtually no information whatsoever about the collective career experiences of those blacks who have since ascended to positions of 81

82


supervisory, command and executive responsibility within the law enforcement profession. In order to fully understand the philosophies that guide the behavior of this increasingly influential population, it is necessary to develop an appreciation for their collective career experiences. Along these lines, it should first be determined how closely the early work experiences of a separate sample of black law enforcement professionals resemble those previously reported by other researchers in the available literature. Assuming that these two sets of accounts will roughly parallel one another with perhaps only slight departure on a few minor points, the next step should involve assessing the perceived nature of their more recent relations with members of various reference and support groups such as subordinate personnel of both races, white supervisory peers, members of the black community as well as family and friends. In essence, the major expectation underlying such an inquiry is that at virtually all stages of their careers, black supervisory, command and executive personnel experience social isolation and rejection from each of these groups. Finally, the black law enforcement professionals of interest are also uniquely capable of providing interested researchers of police behavior with insight into what they perceive as obstacles to the goal of achieving racial equality within the profession. Given these mandates, the following chapter sets forth a method by which the answers to such pressing questions were sought, obtained and analyzed.

General Research Objectives Based upon the preceding literature review, it becomes apparent that little is readily known regarding the collective career experiences of black command and executive personnel within the law enforcement profession. Compounding this weakness is the fact that the limited amount of knowledge that is available on the more general subject of blacks in American law enforcement is constrained in terms of its external validity. Specifically, most inquiries into the experiences of blacks in law enforcement were conducted between fifteen to thirty years ago. To be sure, conditions surrounding integration of the profession have since changed and are, therefore, in need of reconsideration. Compounding this primary weakness is the fact that these early studies were focused so narrowly that attention was only given to a small handful of officers from New York City and other


83

select metropolitan police departments. While such accounts undeniably provided researchers of policing with a valuable glimpse into the obstacles these “pioneers” confronted early in their careers, in no way can they be safely generalized to the collective career experiences of other black law enforcement personnel from different geographic regions, types of agencies or even those from more recent generations. Finally, even if this early body of literature were generalizable to other blacks within the profession, it remains limited by the fact that attention was only given to the experiences of line personnel - mostly patrol officers and a few detectives. Consequently, little if any is known about the collective career experiences of those blacks that have since ascended to positions of supervisory, command or executive leadership within the profession. At best, current knowledge regarding the career experiences of blacks within law enforcement is limited to research involving only a handful of patrollevel officers from select agencies carried out, in some instances, as long as three decades ago. In response to these apparent gaps in existing knowledge, this study constituted an in-depth examination of the collective career experiences of those blacks that have since ascended to positions of supervisory, command and executive leadership within the profession. As such, its objectives were multi-fold. First, it was designed to assess the external validity of several earlier studies cited above. In doing so, it both asks and answers the question “To what extent have black law enforcement supervisory, command and executive personnel experienced conditions of employment similar to those previously depicted by other researchers within the available literature?” This initial objective was given substantive attention by six (6) research questions and attending hypotheses, all of which are more fully elaborated below. The study’s second objective was to gain a more complete understanding and appreciation for the collective career experiences of black law enforcement personnel who have since advanced beyond the patrol level to assume positions of supervisory, command and executive leadership within the profession. As the number of black men and women occupying these types of positions within the profession continues to grow, it becomes not only theoretically interesting but vitally important to understand their beliefs, perceptions and attitudes regarding a myriad of race-related issues likely to affect the evolution of

84


future personnel practices within the field. In particular, the importance of developing this understanding becomes even more significant when one stops to consider the fact that blacks now lead many of the nation’s law enforcement agencies. Because so little is currently known about the experiences of black supervisory, command and executive personnel, numerous questions arise. For example - What has been the nature of their perceived relations with subordinates and supervisory peers of the opposite race? What has it been like to serve as a black supervisor in a largely white-dominated profession? What are their perceptions regarding differential treatment between the races in the application of performance, discipline and promotion criteria? What are their views regarding the current state of working relations between black and white officers? These and other areas of inquiry formed a basis for the study’s second objective which was addressed by four (4) research questions and attending hypotheses. Overarching these two objectives was a third that sought to determine how far, if at all, law enforcement has progressed toward the goal of fair and equitable treatment between members of the two races (i.e., blacks and whites). Although there certainly exist a number and variety of methods for making such an assessment, the present study accomplished this objective by examining statistical differences in the pattern of responses obtained from a sample of black supervisory, command and executive law enforcement personnel who entered the profession prior to or during 1980 as compared to those who entered later.8 The results of these analyses are reported in Chapter Four.

Specific Research Questions and Hypotheses The study’s three broad objectives are elaborated through a series of eleven (11) research questions. Research questions one through six pertained to the first objective, while the next five questions (#’s 7-10) addressed the second objective. Research question number eleven addressed the study’s third objective. Each of these questions and their attending research hypotheses are more formally enumerated below. Research Objective #1 - The study seeks to assess through a series of six research questions (#’s 1-6 below) and attending hypotheses the extent to which black law enforcement supervisory, command and executive personnel have experienced conditions of employment similar to those previously depicted by other researchers within the available literature.


85

Research Question #1: How similar, if at all, are the perceptions of the present study’s sample to those previously reported in the available literature regarding the general nature of interracial working and social relations during the first five years of their careers? •

Hypothesis #1a: It is hypothesized that members of the present study’s sample will report a perceived lack of social acceptance among white officers during the first five years of their careers.

•

Research Hypothesis #1b: It is hypothesized that members of the present study’s sample will report the perception that white officers did not view them as equals during the first five years of their careers.

•

Research Hypothesis #1c: It is hypothesized that members of the present study’s sample will report the development of mutual trust and confidence in the individual abilities of their racial counterparts.

•

Research Hypothesis #1d: It is hypothesized that members of the present study’s sample will report the perception that officers of both races generally “tolerated” one another.

•

Research Hypothesis #1e: It is hypothesized that members of the present study’s sample will report the perception that white officers held negative attitudes about them despite efforts to counteract racial stereotypes.

Research Question #2: How similar, if at all, are the perceptions of the present study’s sample to those previously reported in the available literature regarding unequal treatment and exploitation of black personnel by law enforcement agencies during the first five years of their careers? •

Research Hypothesis #2a: It is hypothesized that members of the present study’s sample will report the perception that law enforcement agencies treated black personnel differently and trusted them less than white personnel.

86

Career Experiences of African American Police Executives •

Research Hypothesis #2b: It is hypothesized that members of the present study’s sample will report the perception that membership in white groups or cliques to which black personnel were denied access played an important role in the distribution of various job-related rewards, privileges and favors.

•

Research Hypothesis #2c: It is hypothesized that members of the present study’s sample will report perceptions of unequal treatment between the races in the distribution of assignments and requested transfers.

•

Research Hypothesis #2d: It is hypothesized that members of the present study’s sample will report the perception that law enforcement agencies exploited black personnel to their own benefit in responding to both ghetto crime and demands from the minority community.

Research Question #3: How similar, if at all, are the perceptions of the present study’s sample to those previously reported in the available literature regarding the general nature of their interactions with members of both the black and white civilian communities during the first five years of their careers? •

Research Hypothesis #3a: It is hypothesized that members of the present study’s sample will report experiencing social rejection by white civilians.

•

Research Hypothesis #3b: It is hypothesized that members of the present study’s sample will report the perception that white civilians either failed or refused to acknowledge their lawful authority as officers.

•

Research Hypothesis #3c: It is hypothesized that members of the present study’s sample will report the perception that black civilians were not supportive of the police in general.

•

Research Hypothesis #3d: It is hypothesized that members of the present study’s sample will report the perception that black civilians did not respect black law enforcement personnel.


87

•

Research Hypothesis #3e: It is hypothesized that members of the present study’s sample will report the perception that black civilians failed or refused to acknowledge their lawful authority as officers.

•

Research Hypothesis #3f: It is hypothesized that members of the present study’s sample will report having experienced tension between competing sources for their loyalty (i.e., that which is expected by the black community and that which is expected by the law).

Research Question #4: How similar, if at all, are the perceptions of the present study’s sample to those previously reported in the available literature regarding the general issue of fairness between the races in performance evaluations? •

Research Hypothesis #4a: It is hypothesized that members of the present study’s sample will reject the inversely phrased assertion that performance evaluations play only a minor role in promotion decisions.

•

Research Hypothesis #4b: It is hypothesized that members of the present study’s sample will indicate perceptions on inequity between the races in the administration of performance evaluations conducted by white supervisors.

•

Research Hypothesis #4c: It is hypothesized that members of the present study’s sample will not only report the perception that black personnel were differentially discriminated against in the enforcement of administrative rules and regulations, but that such instances of discrimination were difficult to substantiate.

•

Research Hypothesis #4d: It is hypothesized that members of the present study’s sample will report a perceived inadequacy in the availability of administrative remedies in instances where rules and regulations were suspected of being differentially enforced between the two races.

88


Research Question #5: How similar, if at all, are the perceptions of the present study’s sample to those previously reported in the available literature regarding the general issue of fairness between the races in the promotions process? •

Research Hypothesis #5a: It is hypothesized that members of the present study’s sample will disagree with the inversely phrased assertion that black officers receive their fair share of promotions.

•

Research Hypothesis #5b: It is hypothesized that members of the present study’s sample will report the perception that favoritism and group membership play important roles in the promotions process.

•

Research Hypothesis #5c: It is hypothesized that members of the present study’s sample will report feeling pressure to satisfy certain informal or unspoken prerequisites in order to be seriously considered for promotion.

•

Research Hypothesis #5d: It is hypothesized that members of the present study’s sample will agree with the proposition that racial tensions increase when black and white officers compete against one another for promotions.

•

Research Hypothesis #5e: It is hypothesized that members of the present study’s sample will disagree with the assertion that under-representation of blacks at higher supervisory levels is attributable to their status as relative “newcomers” within the profession.

Research Question #6: How similar, if at all, are the perceptions of the present study’s sample to those previously reported in the available literature regarding the nature and quality of relations with supervisors of both races? •

Research Hypothesis #6a: It is hypothesized that members of the present study’s sample will indicate a preference for interacting with supervisors of the same race rather than those of another.

The Research Initiative •

89

Research Hypothesis #6b: It is hypothesized that members of the present study’s sample will report the perception that white supervisors treated and supported them differently than white officers.

Research Objective #2 - The study seeks to better understand through a series of five research questions (#’s 7-10 below) and attending hypotheses the collective career experiences of black law enforcement supervisory, command and executive personnel on a number of heretofore empirically unexplored dimensions such as: interpersonal relations with (1) white subordinates; (2) social and professional acceptance among white peers of equivalent rank; (4) changes in professional and social relations with others as a result of their supervisory status, and; (5) views regarding the current nature of interracial working relations. Research Question #7: What are the perceptions of the present study’s sample regarding the nature of their current or most recent relations with subordinate white personnel? •

Research Hypothesis #7a: It is hypothesized that members of the present study’s sample will indicate the belief that they have more difficulty relating with white than black subordinates.

•

Research Hypothesis #7b: It is hypothesized that members of the present study’s sample will report a perceived lack of respect from white subordinates.

•

Research Hypothesis #7c: It is hypothesized that members of the present study’s sample will report difficulty in gaining compliance from white subordinates due to their racial differences.

Research Question #8: What are the perceptions of the present study’s sample regarding the nature of their current or most recent relations with white supervisory peers of equivalent rank?

90

Career Experiences of African American Police Executives •

Research Hypothesis #8a: It is hypothesized that members of the present study’s sample will express the belief that white supervisory peers did not treat or regard them as equals.

•

Research Hypothesis #8b: It is hypothesized that members of the present study’s sample will report experiencing a sense of social isolation and resentment from their white counterparts.

Research Question #9: To what extent do members of the present sample report experiencing altered relations with members of various groups such as subordinate personnel, the minority community, as well as family and friends? •

Research Hypothesis #9a: It is hypothesized that members of the present study’s sample will report experiencing strained relations with subordinate black personnel since being promoted.

•

Research Hypothesis #9b: It is hypothesized that members of the present study’s sample will report experiencing strained relations with subordinate white personnel since being promoted.

•

Research Hypothesis #9c: It is hypothesized that members of the present study’s sample will report experiencing altered relations with members of the black community since being promoted

•

Research Hypothesis #9d: It is hypothesized that members of the present study’s sample will report experiencing strained relations with friends, relatives and acquaintances since being promoted.

Research Question #10: What are the perceptions of the present study’s sample regarding the nature of current working relations between black and white law enforcement personnel? •

Research Hypothesis #10a: It is hypothesized that members of the present study’s sample will indicate the perception that


91

interracial working relations have improved over the past ten years. •

Research Hypothesis #10b: It is hypothesized that members of the present study’s sample will attribute improved interracial working relations to the gradual attrition of older white personnel from the profession.

•

Research Hypothesis #10c: It is hypothesized that members of the present study’s sample will report the belief that some white law enforcement personnel continue to hold negative views about black officers.

Research Objective #3 - The study seeks to determine the extent to which law enforcement has advanced toward the goal of fair and equitable treatment between members of the two races as determined through an examination of statistical differences in the pattern of responses obtained from a sample of black supervisory, command and executive personnel who entered the profession prior to or during 1980 as compared to those who entered the following year (1981) or later. Research Question #11: To what extent, if any, does the historical era in which an individual entered law enforcement as a career9 facilitate an assessment of the relative progress made toward the goal of achieving racial integration within the profession? •

Research Hypothesis #11a: It is hypothesized that members of the present study’s sample who began their law enforcement careers prior to or during 1980 will be more likely than those who entered in later years (1981 or later) to report generally negative beliefs, perceptions and attitudes regarding the nature of their treatment, experiences and relations while members of the profession.

92


The Survey Instrument Review of the available literature led to formation of the specific research questions and accompanying hypotheses stated above. Subsequently, these questions and their respective hypotheses were more fully explored through a series of focused conversations with several law enforcement scholars, researchers, practitioners and executives of both races. From this process, a list of potential survey items addressing each research objective and hypothesis was generated. These items were in turn examined for temporal relevance and redundancy with additions, substitutions and deletions being made where necessary. Emerging from this process of continual refinement was a number of survey items determined to be as directly applicable as possible to each of the research questions and attending hypotheses. The instrument ultimately developed for use in the present study was the “Law Enforcement Executive Survey” (LEES). In essence, the LEES consisted of 82 Likert-type items10 divided into ten substantive areas or “dimensions” of inquiry. More specifically, the survey items examined participants’ beliefs, perceptions and attitudes regarding: •

Early working relationships and experiences with white officers (15 items);

•

Early experiences with differential treatment, trust and exploitation by their respective departments (12 items);

•

Early experiences and relationships with members of both the black and white civilian communities (7 items);

•

Recent experiences with differential treatment between members of the two races in performance evaluations (7 items);

•

Recent experiences with differential treatment between members of the two races in promotions (15 items);

•

Recent experiences and relationships with immediate supervisors of both races (5 items);


93

•

Recent experiences and relationships with subordinate personnel of the opposite race (4 items);

•

Recent experiences and relationships with supervisory peers of the opposite race (4 items);

•

Recent experiences as a supervisory, command and executive personnel (7 items);

•

Current working relations between personnel of both races (6 items).

In addition to this these general areas of inquiry, the following demographic data were also solicited from each participant: • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Age Gender Marital status Highest level of education attained Age at which first entered law enforcement Employment status (current or retired) Type of law enforcement agency by which they are/were employed State in which agency is/was located Current (most recent if retired) position Length of tenure in current (most recent if retired) position Number of sworn personnel under their command Estimated size of population served Annual salary (not family income) Pre-Testing of the Instrument

Prior to circulation, a near-final draft of the survey was pre-tested for identifiable errors, oversights, and other methodological “glitches.” This was accomplished by again asking a number of qualified experts in the methodology of survey research to closely examine the instrument for such issues as spelling, clarity, redundancy, formatting and construction errors, as well as sensitivity to any potentially offensive or problematic items. As a result of this process of reexamination and revision that occurred over the course of several

94


weeks, multiple items were deemed redundant and deleted, some misspelled words were caught and corrected, while other items were rephrased or more specifically operationalized in order to eliminate any ambiguity in interpretation. Once pre-testing was complete and all necessary revisions made, the final version of the instrument was professionally formatted and printed. This measure was taken in order to enhance the instrument’s overall appearance as a well-thought-out research project worthy of a busy professional’s time, attention and effort. Also included in the survey “booklet” was an introductory letter explaining the focus of the project signed at bottom by the Principal Investigator as well as several others whose professional affiliations were purposefully noted with the objective of increasing the response rate. Equally influential was a separate letter of endorsement written by noted historian and author Dr. Marvin Dulaney.

Collection of the Data A small number of respondents (18) initially completed the LEES while in attendance at a CEO development conference sponsored by the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives during the month of March 2000. Given the relatively limited number of participants present during this meeting, a mail strategy was adopted for purposes of establishing contact with additional members of the target population. In order to facilitate this approach, a list of all N.O.B.L.E. members designated as occupying “CEO” status was obtained from the organization’s national office. From this list, an additional 270 prospective participants were identified for inclusion in the study, bringing the final size of the target population to 288. Making use of the names and addresses provided by NOBLE, a cover letter, survey instrument, business card and postage-paid return envelope were mailed to each prospective participant. The cover letter explained the objective of the study - to examine the career experiences of African American law enforcement executives - as well as instructions for completing and returning the attached survey instrument. In order to facilitate follow-up with those who might fail to respond to this initial solicitation for involvement, a unique number was assigned to each survey. The purpose of this numbering system was also explained in the cover letter.


95

Over a period of several weeks, a large proportion of respondents returned the completed surveys through the mail as instructed. After an initial period of approximately six weeks, a follow-up reminder in the form of a postcard was sent by mail to those who had not yet responded to the initial solicitation for involvement.

Demographic and Background Characteristics of Participants Participants (n=123) for this study represent a purposive sample of black law enforcement command and executive personnel drawn from various federal (n=15, 12.2%), state (n=6, 4.9%), county (n=4, 3.3%), municipal (n=69, 56.1%) and institutional (n=29, 23.6%) branches of the profession. More specifically, participants were selected from a master list of NOBLE members classified as CEO’s where this term refers to law enforcement professionals occupying the rank of Lieutenant or above (or GS 13 and above in the federal civil service system). The total sample thus comprised 88 participants who categorized their rank as that of either Chief of Police, Superintendent or Sheriff, 7 as Special Agent in Charge (SAIC), 2 as Director, 11 as Assistant or Deputy Chief, 5 as Assistant Director, 1 as Division Chief, 4 as Captain, 1 as Major, 1 as Lieutenant, and 3 as Special Agent. The mean age at which participants reported entering the profession was 23.8 years with a low and high range of 17 to 45 years. The average length of tenure among participants in their current (if still employed, n = 104) or most recent (if retired, n = 19) position (not entire length of service in the profession) was 5.5 years, with a range of 1 to 27 years. As can be expected, there also existed considerable variation in the number of sworn personnel under each participant’s direct command. For example, the smallest number of subordinates under one’s command was a single individual while the largest number was a department with some 13,000 “plus” personnel. The mean number of personnel under the direct command of the collective sample was 561, with a median of 82 and mode of 10. Perhaps not surprisingly, 95.9% of those who responded were black males with the remainder (4.1%) representing a small handful of black females. The mean age of the complete sample was 50.7 years with a range of 29 to 75 years. A majority of participants (79.7%)

96


indicated that they were married, with those remaining either being single (5.7%) or separated / divorced (14.6%). In terms of education, the largest percentage of respondents (38.2%) possessed master degrees, with the second highest percentage (35%) possessing bachelor degrees. At the extremes of the educational distribution, 4 participants had earned a Ph.D. or other advanced degree. Those remaining had either earned a high school diploma or GED (n=3, 2.4%), some college hours (n=16, 13%), or an associate’s degree (n=10, 8.1%). Geographically speaking, participants represented law enforcement jurisdictions from 24 different states or, in the case of some federal employees, multi-state, regional or even nationwide jurisdiction. The modal response for the size of jurisdiction served was “over 1 million.” The modal response for annual, individual (not family) salary was the category of “over $100,001.”

Data Analysis Techniques The first form of statistical analysis applied to the obtained data involved the simple tabulation and reporting of frequencies for each survey item. By way of brief review, a frequency distribution is best described as a simple method by which numerical information may be both summarized and reported - i.e., it reveals the frequency with which each obtained score occurs within a given survey item’s response categories. Despite the fact that frequency distributions are sometimes regarded as statistically unsophisticated, it should be noted that the simplicity of this technique is indeed its greatest strength. This is particularly true in the case of exploratory research such as that which was undertaken by the present study. In this specific endeavor, the patterns of obtained frequency distributions are very telling. For example, they allow both the researcher and reader to assess the relative magnitude and direction of survey respondents’ reactions to individual survey items, some of which are dramatic whereas others are not. This ability to examine the nature of responses becomes valuable in two notable regards - First, it allows the researcher to at least draw rough comparisons between participants’ reactions to individual survey items and those which have been previously noted elsewhere; Secondly, it helps to identify certain items, dimensions or topics that are in need of further empirical elaboration and exploration through more focused or sophisticated methodological strategies. Given this potential contribution to the exploratory research endeavor, the analysis and


97

reporting of the pattern of frequency responses obtained for each survey item constitutes a major portion of the results to be reported in Chapter Four. In addition to the reporting of frequency patterns, the data analysis plan also involved the application of a second statistical technique Pearson’s chi-square - for purposes of fulfilling the study’s third major research objective which seeks to determine if true statistical differences exist in the pattern of responses provided to survey items by two distinct groups of participants. As noted, the LEES contained 82 items formatted into Likert-style responses. The nature of this data is, therefore, most accurately described as “non-metric’ or “categorical” in nature. Because of the inherent limitations in the types of statistical analyses that can be applied to data sets based upon the ordinal level of measurement, the most appropriate technique for identifying the anticipated differences in response patterns between groups of participants is chi-square. This method of statistical analysis has found widespread application in such situations due to the ease with which it can be both computed and interpreted. In essence, the null hypothesis for the chi-square test states that two categorical variables are statistically independent - that is, that they have no dependent relationship with one another. Of course, departures from independence are to be expected simply by chance alone. Thus, when departure from independence does occur, the question becomes one of determining whether or not this is due to chance alone or if, in fact, there is a true departure from the assumed model of statistical independence. In reporting the results that follow, chi-square analysis is applied to independent variables with two categories and dependent variables with three categories. Observed and expected cell values are computed. To the extent that similarities or differences between these two values are obtained, it will then be determined whether or not the two variables are, respectively, independent or dependent of one another. While the obtained chi-square statistic itself has no inherently interpretable meaning, what can be said is that as this value increases, there exists a greater departure from the chance / null model. At this point, determining the magnitude of departure constituting a true statistical difference becomes possible through examination of a chisquare distribution and table of critical values at the appropriate degrees of freedom where df = (number of rows - 1) x (number of columns - 1). If the obtained chi-square coefficient exceeds the critical tabled value at

98


the desired level of significance (p

Career Experiences of African American Police Executives: Black in Blue Revisited (Criminal Justice (Lfb Scholarly Publishing Llc).)

Prisonization: Individual and Institutional Factors Affecting Inmate Conduct (Criminal Justice (LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC)) (Criminal Justice (Lfb Scholarly Publishing Llc).)

Adapting Police Services to New Immigration (Criminal Justice (Lfb Scholarly Publishing Llc).)

American Militias: State-Level Variations in Militia Activities (Criminal Justice (Lfb Scholarly Publishing Llc).)

Being Real: The Student-Teacher Relationship and African-American Male Delinquency (Criminal Justice) (Criminal Justice (Lfb Scholarly Publishing Llc).)

The Murder of Police Officers (Criminal Justice) (Lfb Scholarly Publishing Llc)

Persistent Offender Law: Racial Disparity, Patterned Offenses, and Unintended Effects (Criminal Justice (Lfb Scholarly Publishing Llc).)

Youth Violence, Resilience, and Rehabilitation (Criminal Justice (Lfb Scholarly Publishing Llc).)

Black in Blue: African-American Police Officers and Racism

Crime in the City: A Political and Economic Analysis of Urban Crime (Criminal Justice (Lfb Scholarly Publishing Llc).)

Making Ends Meet: Income-Generating Strategies Among Mexican Immigrants (New Americans (LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC).) (New Americans (Lfb Scholarly Publishing Llc).)

Culture, Class, and Work Among Arab-American Women (New Americans (Lfb Scholarly Publishing Llc).)

Russian Immigrants in the United States: Adapting to American Culture (New Americans (Lfb Scholarly Publishing Llc).)

Civil Gang Abatement: The Effectiveness and Implications of Policing by Injunction (Criminal Justice (Lfb Scholarly Publishing Llc).)

Changing Gender Roles: Brazilian Immigrant Families in the U.S. (New Americans (LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC.)) (New Americans (Lfb Scholarly Publishing Llc).)

Recruiting Hispanic Labor: Immigrants in Non-Traditional Areas (New Americans (Lfb Scholarly Publishing Llc).)

Making Connections: A Study of Networking Among Immigrant Professionals (New Americans (Lfb Scholarly Publishing Llc).)

Beyond the Immigrant Enclave: Network Change and Assimilation (New Americans (Lfb Scholarly Publishing Llc).)

Identity Formation of Vietnamese Immigrant Youth in an American High School (New Americans (Lfb Scholarly Publishing Llc).)

The Remittance Behavior of Immigrant Households: Micronesians in Hawaii and Guam (The New Americans (Lfb Scholarly Publishing Llc).)

Latino Families Broken by Immigration: The Adolescent's Perceptions (New Americans (Lfb Scholarly Publishing Llc).)

Police Interrogation and American Justice

The Occupational Attainment of Caribbean Immigrants in the United States, Canada, and England (New Americans (Lfb Scholarly Publishing Llc).)

Gender Roles at Home and Abroad: The Adaptation of Bangladeshi Immigrants (New Americans (LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC).)

Blue Skies, Black Wings: African American Pioneers of Aviation

Criminal Justice in America

Police Coercion: Application of the Force Continuum (Criminal Justice: Recent Scholarship) (Criminal Justice Series: Recent Scholarhsip)

Statistics in Criminal Justice

Bridges and Barriers: Earnings and Occupational Attainment Among Immigrants (New Americans) (New Americans (Lfb Scholarly Publishing Llc).)

Career Experiences of African American Police Executives: Black in Blue Revisited (Criminal Justice (Lfb Scholarly Publishing Llc).)

Prisonization: Individual and Institutional Factors Affecting Inmate Conduct (Criminal Justice (LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC)) (Criminal Justice (Lfb Scholarly Publishing Llc).)

Adapting Police Services to New Immigration (Criminal Justice (Lfb Scholarly Publishing Llc).)

American Militias: State-Level Variations in Militia Activities (Criminal Justice (Lfb Scholarly Publishing Llc).)

Being Real: The Student-Teacher Relationship and African-American Male Delinquency (Criminal Justice) (Criminal Justice (Lfb Scholarly Publishing Llc).)

The Murder of Police Officers (Criminal Justice) (Lfb Scholarly Publishing Llc)

Persistent Offender Law: Racial Disparity, Patterned Offenses, and Unintended Effects (Criminal Justice (Lfb Scholarly Publishing Llc).)

Youth Violence, Resilience, and Rehabilitation (Criminal Justice (Lfb Scholarly Publishing Llc).)

Black in Blue: African-American Police Officers and Racism

Crime in the City: A Political and Economic Analysis of Urban Crime (Criminal Justice (Lfb Scholarly Publishing Llc).)

Making Ends Meet: Income-Generating Strategies Among Mexican Immigrants (New Americans (LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC).) (New Americans (Lfb Scholarly Publishing Llc).)

Culture, Class, and Work Among Arab-American Women (New Americans (Lfb Scholarly Publishing Llc).)

Russian Immigrants in the United States: Adapting to American Culture (New Americans (Lfb Scholarly Publishing Llc).)

Civil Gang Abatement: The Effectiveness and Implications of Policing by Injunction (Criminal Justice (Lfb Scholarly Publishing Llc).)

Changing Gender Roles: Brazilian Immigrant Families in the U.S. (New Americans (LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC.)) (New Americans (Lfb Scholarly Publishing Llc).)

Recruiting Hispanic Labor: Immigrants in Non-Traditional Areas (New Americans (Lfb Scholarly Publishing Llc).)

Making Connections: A Study of Networking Among Immigrant Professionals (New Americans (Lfb Scholarly Publishing Llc).)

Beyond the Immigrant Enclave: Network Change and Assimilation (New Americans (Lfb Scholarly Publishing Llc).)

Identity Formation of Vietnamese Immigrant Youth in an American High School (New Americans (Lfb Scholarly Publishing Llc).)

The Remittance Behavior of Immigrant Households: Micronesians in Hawaii and Guam (The New Americans (Lfb Scholarly Publishing Llc).)

Latino Families Broken by Immigration: The Adolescent's Perceptions (New Americans (Lfb Scholarly Publishing Llc).)

Police Interrogation and American Justice

The Occupational Attainment of Caribbean Immigrants in the United States, Canada, and England (New Americans (Lfb Scholarly Publishing Llc).)

Gender Roles at Home and Abroad: The Adaptation of Bangladeshi Immigrants (New Americans (LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC).)

Blue Skies, Black Wings: African American Pioneers of Aviation

Criminal Justice in America

Police Coercion: Application of the Force Continuum (Criminal Justice: Recent Scholarship) (Criminal Justice Series: Recent Scholarhsip)

Statistics in Criminal Justice

Bridges and Barriers: Earnings and Occupational Attainment Among Immigrants (New Americans) (New Americans (Lfb Scholarly Publishing Llc).)

Recommend Documents