Is "Defund the Police" Disorienting?
When the term “defund the police” went more mainstream in the wake of George Floyd’s death, many people were caught off guard by the intention of the movement and what it really meant. This movement has been around for decades and has evolved more in the last few years for activists, but the term has caused many people to pause. It’s also fair to say that some of the people taking issue with the term are white and I’m assuming they don’t like it because their concept of the police has always been one that represents safety before danger.
Defunding the police is not as radical as it sounds — it does not mean that law enforcement protections are abolished or that funds are just zeroed out before people walk away and leave nothing in it’s stead. It means that the system is completely re-arranged to create a more equitable atmosphere, one that better serves the interests of the community who pays the taxes.
The truth is that we currently over-rely on the police to handle matters that were previously solved via other avenues within a community. The police are called to take accident reports, handle overdoses, deal with domestic issues, roust the homeless and deal with children for behaviors that were once handled within the schools.
The police are often over-burdened and out of their depth in dealing with social problems, many of which should be decriminalized to take police out of the equation and actually assist the taxpayer. The bottom line in the “defund the police” concept is that any new system should seek to reform equality issues while making newly formed law enforcement paradigms more effective by taking more off of their policing plate.
Defunding the police is a generic term, that is specialized for each community that deploys it to reimagine the role the police play in public safety and re-distribute the community wealth, such as increasing funding for mental health specialists and services. I am not an expert in this area, but I found that this quote sums it up well:
“Defunding the police means shrinking the scope of police responsibilities and shifting most of what government does to keep us safe to entities that are better equipped to meet that need. It means investing more in mental-health care and housing, and expanding the use of community mediation and violence interruption programs.” — Christy Lopez, Journalist
I have also provided underlined links throughout this post that will take you to free articles that will give you more information on the concept of defunding the police to better serve each community. I think the recent John Oliver segment explaining the history of the system of policing in the United States was extremely informative. You can watch it here and I recommend you do before commenting below:
My question for you is, after you have read about what the term means and have spent some time learning about the proposition, do you still think using the “defund” qualifier in the slogan is problematic, or are you able to move past the misunderstood concept?
The wording is apparently creating a barrier for a lot of people who are simply offended by what they think it means, but will this be a problem for the movement, or will more education overcome that disconnect? There will always be people who are offended by anything people of color do as a reflex, all while denying that it has anything to do with race. Think about the people who completely overlooked the point and chose to be offended by the term “Black Lives Matter” because they felt it was not inclusive enough of all lives mattering.
As an ally, I do not feel that I have the right to criticize the terminology, because I did not create the movement and it’s not my place to name it. But, it is my place now to help the movement and I want to do that well. I know I have made the commitment to educate more people, but will that be enough? Do you feel comfortable speaking out about the disconnect, or is thinking we have a right to criticize the terminology just another reflex of our privilege? Let’s talk about it…it’s a beautiful day to learn something.
Posts like this are made possible by paid subscriptions from readers like you, which allow me to keep posting critical news for the public like this. By getting a paid subscription to SHERO, you will be getting exclusive content not available to everyone while supporting independent journalism for everyone. Please consider getting your paid subscription today.
Amee Vanderpool writes the “Shero” Newsletter and is an attorney, contributor to magazines and newspapers and analyst for BBC radio. She can be reached at avanderpool@gmail.com or follow her on Twitter @girlsreallyrule.
My favorite part of this piece: “ I do not feel that I have the right to criticize the terminology, because I did not create the movement and it’s not my place to name it. But, it is my place now to help the movement and I want to do that well.”
We white people, especially those of us who haven’t been a part of this struggle from the beginning, need to focus on asking “how can I help”. If we attempt to co-opt, rename and redefine this struggle, we’re operating as part of the system of white supremacy that has always tried to package and rebrand the struggle for liberation in a form that’s more comfortable for white consumption.
The following is all my personal opinion. I have no special qualifications and am white and over 40. As you may have guessed, I do think that the slogan is problematic. But maybe not for the reasons you may think. We teach children from a young age the power of language. How words can help or heal. How important it is to communicate and to say what you mean to avoid misunderstanding. For those that go into marketing language and slogans can make or break a product. The unfortunate reality is is that many adults - young and old - will not educate themselves . They will hear the slogan and assign their own beliefs into it. I have sent Trump supporters articles and have literally been told they DON’T WANT to read it- don’t want to educate themselves. That’s problem one. Problem two and the bigger issue I foresee is that we have a real opportunity to get some conservatives and some actual police force to help with this issue. The conservatives will get their back up and the police forces will look at this as another burden. The good officers will probably welcome these reforms so why alienate them with a slogan? We can do better. The one thing that Trump is good at is marketing his evil ideas into “national dreams”. We need to be as good - marketing our dreams and ideals for a better America . One that appeals to our similarities and mutual goals. If we can get conservatives and some police to help with reform we will succeed. Again my own personal opinions here.