Activism
OP-ED: Slogans Over Solutions: The Real Cost of Defunding the Police
Let’s be blunt: Defund the Police is not just a failure—it’s a farce. Consider Oakland’s much-hyped MACRO program, designed to respond to 911 calls without armed officers. In theory, it was supposed to lighten the police’s load and ensure that non-violent incidents were handled by social workers. In practice, it’s a bureaucratic disaster. Nearly all of its service recipients are homeless, and a mere 6% of calls result in meaningful help. The cost to taxpayers? Nearly $3,000 per referral.
By Dr. Jennifer Tran
It’s time to cut through the slogans and set the record straight on the “Defund the Police” movement. What started as a rallying cry, borne out of real pain and injustice, has become a case study in misguided policy, political opportunism, and unintended consequences. It is, in fact, a lesson in the tragic comedy of American politics, where grand gestures replace practical solutions, and the impulsive dreams of self-serving politicians only succeed in plunging cities into chaos. And the communities that were supposed to benefit from these reforms? They’re the ones paying the steepest price.
To understand how we got here, let’s rewind the tape to 2013, when the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement emerged in response to horrific instances of police brutality. The deaths of Black men and women at the hands of law enforcement rightly shocked the public, and for once, there was a reckoning with the systemic inequities that had long plagued the American criminal justice system. It wasn’t just theory anymore, buried in the pages of university texts. Viral videos of police brutality turned those academic arguments into raw, painful reality for millions. People were outraged, and rightly so. We demanded change.
Then came 2016, when Oakland’s Anti-Police Terror Project decided the solution to police violence was to cut the police budget by 50%. In a utopia where crime doesn’t exist, maybe that could work. But on the streets of America, where real people face real threats, the idea was nothing short of delusional. The group, bankrolled by millions from the Akonadi Foundation and its president Lateefah Simon, pushed to slash Oakland’s police budget in half and divert the funds to social services. Sounds noble in theory. A better society, they promised, lay just beyond the horizon—one where cops were obsolete and violence simply evaporated once social workers entered the scene. But there’s a reason serious policy experts dismissed this as fringe from the start—it was.
And then, the murder of George Floyd in 2020 gave this once-fringe movement a national megaphone. “Defund the Police” became the rallying cry for protests that swept across the country. City councils from Oakland to New York City fell over themselves to slash police budgets in response to activist pressure. Progressive politicians saw an opportunity to appease their activist base by passing “bold” policies, irrespective of the practical consequences.
But herein lies the rub. Defunding the police is not a policy—it’s a moral pose, an empty chant masquerading as a solution. What exactly did anyone think would happen when cities with already strained police forces began gutting their budgets? Did they think crime would simply cease? That communities terrorized by violence would find comfort in knowing that more mental health workers were on call while fewer officers patrolled their neighborhoods?
The reality struck like a hammer. When police officers, demoralized by public scorn and abandoned by their city leaders, began resigning in droves, crime spiked. Homicides, carjackings, and robberies surged in cities like Oakland, while the communities that supposedly stood to benefit from defunding were left more vulnerable than ever. In fact, it became clear that the only people who thrived in this brave new world were the criminals.
What’s worse, the political damage was catastrophic. Not only did the Defund movement fail to deliver on its promises, but it handed Republicans a golden opportunity to paint Democrats as reckless and soft on crime. In the 2020 elections, the backlash was evident as Democrats struggled to shake off the taint of these disastrous policies. What could have been a serious conversation about police reform—about how to make law enforcement both effective and accountable—was hijacked by the extremists who would rather tear it all down.
Let’s be blunt: Defund the Police is not just a failure—it’s a farce. Consider Oakland’s much-hyped MACRO program, designed to respond to 911 calls without armed officers. In theory, it was supposed to lighten the police’s load and ensure that non-violent incidents were handled by social workers. In practice, it’s a bureaucratic disaster. Nearly all of its service recipients are homeless, and a mere 6% of calls result in meaningful help. The cost to taxpayers? Nearly $3,000 per referral.
Meanwhile, Oakland’s police force remains understaffed, overburdened, and demoralized. Despite budget reversals in 2022, the damage was done. Many officers, tired of being vilified, left the force altogether. And now, the city is struggling to recruit replacements while crime rates continue to climb.
But rather than learn from failure, the Defund movement doubled down. When reducing police numbers didn’t deliver the utopia they’d promised, they shifted their focus to local district attorneys, funding campaigns for candidates who promised to stop prosecuting crimes altogether. The result? A crime wave unlike anything we’ve seen in years. Retail theft, carjackings, burglaries—if there’s a crime to commit, it’s being committed in cities where these “progressive” prosecutors are in charge.
And in Oakland, the epicenter of this failed experiment, District Attorney Pamela Price is now facing a recall. Why? Because the voters who once supported her are now living with the consequences of her policies. They know what happens when ideology collides with reality—and reality always wins.
Yet despite all of this, the architects of this movement are still trying to sell us their snake oil. Lateefah Simon, the financier and architect behind the entire movement to Defund the Police, is now running for Congress. Backed by the same billionaire funders who helped launch the Defund debacle, she’s hoping to take her failed ideas to Washington, D.C. And if we’re not careful, she just might succeed.
But there is a better way. I support a new and bold piece of legislation called the Modern Cities Act, which offers a sensible alternative. Instead of gutting the police, we need to invest in police departments to reform them. Under this plan, we can have both public safety and justice. This approach recognizes that we need mental health services, housing solutions, and job programs to address the root causes of crime, but we also know that without police, those programs won’t have a chance to succeed. Reforming police practices doesn’t mean getting rid of police—it means holding them accountable while making sure they have the resources and training to protect our communities while never endangering community members.
The truth is, we don’t need fewer cops. We need better cops. We need training, transparency, and yes, accountability. But the notion that we can simply defund the police into oblivion and expect society to flourish is not just naive—it’s dangerous. We should be questioning the judgment of any politician who ever supported this harmful experiment, and they should never be allowed in public office again.
So, the next time someone tells you that defunding the police is the path to progress, ask them this: who’s going to keep your family safe when the police are gone? And then ask them if they’ve learned anything from Oakland. Because the rest of us certainly have.
Dr. Jennifer Tran is a Professor of Ethnic Studies at California State University. She is also the President of the Oakland Vietnamese Chamber of Commerce, and Democratic Party candidate for US Congress in Oakland’s District 12. This article was sponsored by the campaign of Dr. Jennifer Tran for Congress.
Activism
Oakland Post: Week of October 30 – November 5, 2024
The printed Weekly Edition of the Oakland Post: Week of October 30 – November 5, 2024
To enlarge your view of this issue, use the slider, magnifying glass icon or full page icon in the lower right corner of the browser window.
Activism
“Two things can be true at once.” An Afro-Latina Voter Weighs in on Identity and Politics
“As a Puerto Rican I do not feel spoken to in discussions about Latino voters… which is ironic because we are one of the few Latino communities who are also simultaneously American,” Ortiz-Cedeño says. Puerto Ricans born in Puerto Rico, a U.S. territory, have American citizenship by birth but they do not have the right to vote for president if they live on the island. “I think that we miss out on a really interesting opportunity to have a nuanced conversation by ignoring this huge Latino population that is indigenously American.”
By Magaly Muñoz
On a sunny afternoon at Los Cilantros Restaurant in Berkeley, California, Keyanna Ortiz-Cedeño, a 27-year-old Afro-Latina with tight curly hair and deep brown skin, stares down at her carne asada tacos, “I’ve definitely eaten more tortillas than plantains over the course of my life,” says Cedeño, who spent her childhood in South Texas, among predominantly Mexican-American Latinos. As she eats, she reflects on the views that American politicians have of Latino voters.
“As a Puerto Rican I do not feel spoken to in discussions about Latino voters… which is ironic because we are one of the few Latino communities who are also simultaneously American,” Ortiz-Cedeño says. Puerto Ricans born in Puerto Rico, a U.S. territory, have American citizenship by birth but they do not have the right to vote for president if they live on the island. “I think that we miss out on a really interesting opportunity to have a nuanced conversation by ignoring this huge Latino population that is indigenously American.”
Ortiz-Cedeño, an urban planner who is focused on disaster resilience, homelessness and economic prosperity for people of color, says that political conversations around Latinos tend to shift towards immigration, “I think this ties back into the ways that our perception of ‘Latino’ tends to be Mexican and Central American because so much of our conversation about Latinos is deeply rooted in what’s happening on the border,” she says. “I don’t think that the Afro-Latino vote is frequently considered when we’re talking about the Latino vote in the United States.”
As Ortiz-Cedeño sifts through childhood photos of her as a happy teen dancing with the Mexican ballet folklorico group in high school and as a dama in quinceñeras, she reflects on growing up in South Texas, an area with a large population of white and Mexican-Americans. The Black population was small, and within it, the Afro-Latino population was practically nonexistent.
“It was interesting to try to have conversations with other Latinos in the community because I think that there was a combination of both willful ignorance and a sort of ill intent and effort to try and deny my experience as a Latino,” she says. “There are a lot of folks in Latin America who experience a lot of cognitive dissonance when they think about the existence of Black Latinos in Latin America.
Ortiz-Cedeño comments on the long history of anti-Blackness in Latin America. “Throughout Latin America, we have a really insidious history with erasing Blackness and I think that that has been carried into the Latino American culture and experience,” she says. “People will tell you, race doesn’t exist in Latin America, like we’re all Dominicans, we’re all Puerto Ricans, we’re all Cubans, we’re all Mexicans. If you were to go to the spaces with where people are from and look at who is experiencing the most acute violence, the most acute poverty, the most acute political oppression and marginalization, those people are usually darker. And that’s not by accident, it’s by design.”
Because of the lack of diversity in her Gulf Coast town, as a teenager, despite being the only Spanish-speaker at her job in Walmart, Latinos refused to ask for her help in Spanish.
“Even if monolingual [Spanish-speaking] people would have to speak with me, then they were trying to speak English, even though they could not speak English, versus engaging with me as a Latina,” she says.
“I think that the perception of Latinos in the United States is of a light brown person with long, wavy or straight hair. The perfect amount of curves and the perfect combination of Indigenous and white genes. And very rarely will people also consider that maybe they also have a sprinkle of Blackness in them as well,” she says. “Over 90% of the slave trade went to the Caribbean and Latin America.”
Ortiz-Cedeño remembers when a Cuban family moved in next door to her in Texas. The teen daughter had blue-eyes, blonde hair and only spoke Spanish, which caused neighboring Latinos to take pause because she didn’t fit the Latino “look” they were used to.
“People didn’t have an option to try and negate her [Latino] identity because they had to acknowledge her for everything that she was,” Ortiz-Cedeño says.
Later on, the girl’s cousins, a Black, Spanish-speaking Cuban family, came into town and again locals were forced to reckon with the fact that not all Latinos fit a certain criteria.
“I think it forced everybody to have to confront a reality that they knew in the back of their mind but didn’t want to acknowledge at the forefront,” Ortiz-Cedeño says.
Having gone through these experiences as an Afro-Latina, Ortiz-Cedeño says it’s easy for her to understand Kamala Harris’ mixed Indian and Jamaican heritage, “It comes really naturally to accept that she is both Indian and Black. Two things can exist at the same time,” she says. “I had a long term partner for about seven years who was South Indian, from the same state as Kamala Harris, so if we had had a kid, they would look like [Harris],” Ortiz-Cedeño jokingly shares.
She says she can relate to having to walk the road of people only wanting to see Harris as a Black American. The talking point about [Harris] not being Indian or not being Black, just deciding to be Black, is really disingenuous and cheap,” she says.
Ortiz-Cedeño believes that the Harris campaign has not capitalized on the vice president’s mixed identity, which could be vital in bringing together different communities to understand each other on a new level and allow for improvements on America’s racial dynamics.
As she rushes into a Berkeley Urban Planning Commission meeting straight out of Ashby BART station, Ortiz-Cedeño explains her love for talking about all things infrastructure, homelessness, and healthcare access. The topics can be dry for many, she admits, but in the end, she gets to address long-standing systemic issues that often hinder opportunities for growth for people of color.
Having lived through the effects of Hurricane Katrina as a child, with the flooding and mass migration of Louisiana residents into Texas, Ortiz-Cedeño was radicalized into issues of displacement, emergency mitigation, and housing at nine years old.
“I remember my principal had to carry her students on her shoulders and swim us home because so many parents were trying to drive in and get their kids from school [due to] the flooding that was pushing their cars away,” she recalls.
Her family relocated to Houston soon after Katrina, only to be met with a deadly Hurricane Rita. They wound up in a mega-shelter, where Ortiz-Cedeño says she heard survivors stories of the unstable conditions in New Orleans and beyond, which got her wondering about urban planning, a term she wasn’t familiar with at the time.
“I think that when you put people in the context of the things that were happening in this country around [these hurricanes], a lot of us started to really think seriously about who gets to make decisions about the urban environment,” she adds.
Watching the heavy displacement of disaster survivors, hearing stories of her Navy veteran father’s chronic homelessness, and her own mother’s work and activism with homeless communities in the non–profit sector put her on the path to progressive politics and solutions, she says. After attending college on the East Coast- where she says she was finally recognized as a Puerto Rican- and working in housing, economic development, and public policy, she returned to California to earn a Master’s in City Regional Planning from UC Berkeley.
Her vast interest in the urban success of underserved communities even took her abroad to Israel and Palestine when she was an undergraduate college student. “I’ve seen the border with Gaza, I’ve had homestays with farmers in the West Bank,” she says. “For me personally, Palestine is an issue that is really close to the heart.”
“I have a very intimate understanding of the conflict and I’m very disturbed by the way in which the [Democratic] party has not been willing to engage in what I would perceive to be a thoughtful enough conversation about the conflict,” Ortiz-Cedeño says. “The issue of Palestine is going to be one of those that is a make or break issue for her. It has not been one that has been taken seriously enough by the party.”
Ortiz-Cedeño is not under the illusion that one candidate will address every policy issue she wants to see tackled by the president. But she believes it’s better than what former President Donald Trump has to offer.
“Trump has made it very clear what his intentions are with Palestine, and what his relationship is with [Benjamin] Netanyahu,” Ortiz-Cedeño says. “I understand the political strategy that many people are trying to engage in by withholding their vote, but I would also encourage them to re-engage in the political process.”
Casting her vote for Harris is a decision grounded in calculation rather than outright support. “I think I can vote in this election in order to have harm reduction… because I have deep care and concern for other communities that are going to be impacted by a Trump presidency,” Ortiz-Cedeño says.
She also hopes that American politicians will consider the nuance and perspective that Afro-Latinos bring to the table when it comes to politics, policy, and race in America, “When we don’t think expansively about who is Latino in the United States, the breadth of Latino experiences in the United States, we miss an opportunity to capture how diverse Latinos interests are politically.”
This story was reported in collaboration with PBS VOCES: Latino Vote 2024.
Activism
On Your November Ballot: Prop 6 Could End “Involuntary Servitude” in California Prisons
Proposition (Prop) 6 would repeal language in the California Constitution that prohibits “involuntary servitude except to punish crime.” Instead, it will replace it with language that prohibits slavery and involuntary servitude absolutely.
By Edward Henderson, California Black Media
Proposition (Prop) 6 would repeal language in the California Constitution that prohibits “involuntary servitude except to punish crime.”
Instead, it will replace it with language that prohibits slavery and involuntary servitude absolutely.
The amendment would also prohibit the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation from disciplining any incarcerated person for refusing a work assignment and authorize the department to award time credits to incarcerated persons who voluntarily participate in work assignments.
To gain a greater understanding of the proposition and the experience of incarcerated individuals impacted by the current language, California Black Media spoke with Dr. Tanisha Cannon, Managing Director of Legal Services for Prisoners with Children (LSPC).
“There are really two main messages for this to be a yes vote,” said Cannon. “The way that the Constitution names what’s going on in these prisons is called involuntary servitude. Involuntary servitude is just another name for slavery. That means that there’s a force and there’s coercion. So, the main message here is that involuntary servitude is slavery.”
So far, eight states, including California, have made provisions in their constitutions permitting involuntary servitude, but not slavery, as a criminal punishment. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, 34 states have “earned time” credits that are awarded for participating in or completing education, vocational training, treatment, and work programs. Time credits can later be applied towards early release from secure custody.
The Anti-Recidivism Coalition has also been on record supporting Prop 6, stating that, “More than 94,000 Californians are currently enslaved in state prison. African Americans account for 28% of the prison population despite making up less than 6% of California’s overall population.”
Of those roughly 90,000 inmates, the state’s prison system employs nearly 40,000 who complete a variety of tasks including cleaning, cooking, firefighting, construction and yard work. Most of these workers earn less than 74 cents an hour, excluding the firefighters who can make up to $10 a day. State law permits the corrections department to pay up to half of the current minimum wage in California ($16).
Eighty percent of the employees at LSPC have been directly impacted by the prison-industrial complex. Cannon’s brother works there as well and was in prison at the age of 16 experiencing first-hand how forced labor can negatively impact an individual’s psyche.
“My grandmother passed away and he received that news in the evening. On the outside, you’d get some grieving time. That wasn’t the case for him,” said Cannon.
“He had to wake up at five o’clock the next morning. So, imagine learning that the woman who raised you just passed away. You’re due for work at 5 a.m. in the morning to operate heavy machinery and you cannot say that you don’t want to work because there’s no excused absence in prison.”
So far, there hasn’t been any organized opposition to Prop 6 in California.
A “yes” vote supports amending the state constitution to prohibit slavery and involuntary servitude as punishment for a crime and authorize the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to award credits to incarcerated persons who voluntarily participate in work assignments.
A “no” vote opposes amending the state constitution to prohibit slavery and involuntary servitude as punishment for a crime.
-
Alameda County5 days ago
Alameda County District Attorney Pamela Price Announces $7.5 Million Settlement Agreement with Walmart
-
Activism2 weeks ago
COMMENTARY: DA Price Has Done Nothing Wrong; Oppose Her Recall
-
Activism2 weeks ago
OP-ED: Hydrogen’s Promise a Path to Cleaner Air and Jobs for Oakland
-
Activism2 weeks ago
Barbara Lee, Other Leaders, Urge Voters to Say ‘No’ to Recalls of D.A. Pamela Price, Mayor Sheng Thao
-
Activism3 weeks ago
Oakland Post: Week of October 9 – 15, 2024
-
Community2 weeks ago
Terry T. Backs Oakland Comedy Residency by Oakland’s Luenell at Jimmy Kimmel’s Comedy Club in Las Vegas
-
Business2 weeks ago
Study Confirms California’s $20/Hour Fast Food Wage Raises Pay Without Job Losses
-
Activism2 weeks ago
Surge of Support for Vote ‘No’ on Recall of Mayor Sheng Thao