Defunding the Police: What’s in a Name?

“What’s in a name? That which we call a rose would by any other name smell as sweet.” And yet words matter, especially in a time when so much of our social interaction is online and we lose the nuance of body language and tone.

And semantics makes for an easy thing to pick apart when you don’t want to support the ideas behind a phrase. 

So right now, a vast majority of the American public is talking about and looking to take action to end police brutality. But then the hard part happens - because real change, getting lawmakers to put their name on record to pass legislation from city hall to the halls of Congress, is hard. Every single elected official wants to keep their job, and they have to keep enough voters happy to keep them their (and donors too, but let’s not open that particular can of worms here). But every district is different, which means the message that will reach them is different.

Let’s look at a couple of examples. A seat that is safely Democratic has voters who will likely support a large range of reform measures. So the representatives is free to say they support #DefundThePolice and the voters won’t oust them over that. But a swing district is another story. That official has to build a bigger coalition of voters, and that means finding a way to communicate with people who are hesitant to sign on to something that sounds shocking at first. So that representative probably doesn’t use the hashtag, and instead focuses on the substance of the policy measures. 

And, let’s be honest, the idea of defunding the police has some shock value. That’s not unintentional. But there’s a difference between taking away some of the police budget to reallocate for programs that would replace many of the functions the police force currently perform and completely getting rid of a police department or starting one over from scratch. So even in that, there’s a spectrum of possibilities of meaning (and of course, opponents will latch on to the most shocking and wave it like a red hat - oops, flag - to a bull).

Alright then, let’s talk about policy, because at the end of the day that’s the goal. And we want it to be meaningful. The best resource I’ve found for this is Campaign Zero and the 8 specific policies they propose to immediately lower rates of police brutality. I want to talk about a few of the things that are behind the hashtag, specifically related to funding.

Ending “Broken Windows” Policing

Basically, this means that police would no longer spend time on things that don’t threaten public safety, such as jaywalking, playing loud music, and marijuana possession, that have historically been used to criminalize being black or brown. This can be done by deprioritizing enforcement or passing legislation to decriminalize, giving local lawmakers some flexibility in how they enact this one. And if police have less of this type of work to do, they have more ability to respond to higher priority calls.

Establishing More Mental Health Resources to Respond to Calls (and in general)

Many times police respond to situations in which they’re not the ideal profession to deal with the issue. Having social workers and mental health workers available to respond as needed would help citizens and again, free up police time and dollars to pay for the new line of response.

Demilitarizing the Police

The federal government should end the 1033 program to provide military equipment to police forces. Police forces should not be able to use federal grant money to purchase military equipment. The police do not need armored vehicles (did you know Houston PD has a tank?), Stingray surveillance equipment, camouflage uniforms, or grenade launchers. SWAT should only deployed as absolutely necessary, and no-knock raids should be banned (such as the Harding Street raid here in Houston).

Using Federal/State Resources to Investigate Injuries and Deaths in Police Custody

This one is pretty self-explanatory. The Department of Justice already has a program to do so, although lowering the standard of proof for them to investigate would allow them to investigate more cases. States can set up a Special Prosecutor office to conduct investigations of incidents in which police injure or kill. If departments aren’t investigating themselves, that money can be spent elsewhere.

Ending Quotas for Tickets and Arrests

Fewer low priority and non-violent offenses to spend time on, more time to spend on higher priority issues. 

Okay, so those are all pretty doable things for lawmakers. Let’s talk about how reallocating police funds and assigning some current police functions to other resources changes how police interact with the community.

This graphic is from the Dallas PD, but most departments have similar levels of priority. So, if all of the Priority 5 calls went to a non-emergency line for the city or county, these don’t require an armed police officer to file paperwork, and by ending “broken windows” policing a lot of these would go away anyway. Same with Priority 4 - here you have more investigation and documentation happening for a theft or burglary, but after the fact there’s no need for an armed officer. Animal complaints and panhandling shouldn’t be handled by police, and that’s where some of that money for mental health and social workers can be reallocated. 

For the next level of priority, this is where police are going to have a more complex task. But again, for a call about an intoxicated person it could be medical personnel to respond. 

The top two levels of priority are clearly urgent matters for police to respond to and that’s the public safety role they should be filling. But unless it’s an urgent threat to public safety, we can find another way to approach it than an armed police officer primed to use force. There’s more that goes into the cultural shifts that still need to happen, such as training and use of force guidelines, but just from this we can see that we overuse our police for matters that other services are well equipped to handle.

So let me ask you a question. Do you agree with the idea of focusing where we use police to only the most urgent matters and finding more community-based solutions for the others?

If yes, then guess what? You support the policies to #DefundThePolice. Not as shocking as it seems at first, but yes, we did have to unpack it to make sense of it.

But that’s not enough. We have to educate our friends and allies, our new partners in reforming the system, because only when we all speak together will our lawmakers listen en masse. 

As white people in this moment, what we can do is take on that burden of educating other white people about this movement. I get that the name of it is polarizing. It’s supposed to be. But this is the time to really bring black voices to the table, and it was black women who founded this movement. We can, and should, discuss the reaction to the word “defund,” but only as long as we realize that it’s part of our own process of becoming more anti-racist.

So here is my call to action for you. I want you to be bold. Post on social media that you support #DefundThePolice. Post rules for the discussion, and uphold them. But then engage with your social circle about what that really means. You won’t convince everyone, and that’s okay.

Need a sample post? Here’s what I’m going to say:

Let’s have a conversation. I want to #DefundThePolice. Let’s discuss why.

Rules: No personal attacks. Ask sincere questions. Remember we are all on a journey to learn about this, but in different places. And remember that we are working for a common goal - a more just society.