NYPD leaders (photo: Ed Reed/Mayoral Photography Office)
The early 1990s trial of the Los Angeles police officers accused of assaulting Rodney King was the first major police trial involving videotape evidence of the police actions. King had led the police on a high-speed car chase subsequent to being suspected of driving while intoxicated. The approximately 13-minute video showed police officers repeatedly kicking and striking King with batons.
The trial of the four accused officers ended on April 29, 1992 with an acquittal of all the charges, the videotape of the King beating notwithstanding. The day following the acquittal, there was turmoil in Los Angeles. Ultimately, more than 60 people died, there were innumerable injuries, and scores of primarily Black and brown residents were arrested. The disturbances and uprisings were not limited to L.A.
The trial of former police officer Derek Chauvin in Minnesota over the death of George Floyd is currently running on a similar track as closing arguments are given this week. (The other former officers who have been charged in the incident will be tried separately.)
We have see >n versions of this pattern play out many other times and in many other places since, including here in New York City over the death of Eric Garner and subsequent criminal justice process, which did not even make it to trial. Even as the Chuavin trial moves to closure, the recent killings by police of Adam Toledo and Daunte Wright churn our thoughts and emotions about policing and race relations.
The trial of Chauvin is critical in many ways. The jury of 14 (12 official jurors and two alternates, diverse in terms of race and gender) sitting in the courtroom will determine whether or not Chauvin is guilty of any or all of the charges he faces, and, if found guilty of any, Minnesota State Judge Peter Cahill will then be expected to impose a sentence reflective of the justice to be achieved.
Whatever happens in Minnesota, nationally, we the members of the public, especially those of us from communities of color, will render a verdict on whether or not there is reason to now have more belief in the United States promise of fair and impartial treatment by the criminal justice system. From that perspective, Chauvin, the jurors, and Judge Cahill are the defendants. They have become the personification of policing and the process of justice in America.
The jury’s verdicts will be tempered by the knowledge of the continuing incidents of police use of unnecessary and excessive force against people of color since the killing of George Floyd; by the calls for criminal justice reform pressed by the Black Lives Matter movement and its supporters; by the impact of a pandemic that has forced society to see with unequivocal clearness its pervasive and racially-based inequities; and lastly but not least, by the socio-political wake of the violent, racially-tinged insurgency that took place in Washington, D.C. on January 6.
The Chauvin verdicts will soon be rendered. Like the verdicts rendered by the jury and the public after the Rodney King trial, they will have serious short- and long-term social consequences and political repercussions. What will be different? It depends on what we have learned, if anything, during the past 30 years.
***
Hector W. Soto is a lawyer, a professor of Law and Public Policy at Hostos Community College in the Bronx, and a member of the Board of Citizens Union. He is former Director of the New York City Civilian Complaint Review Board (CCRB), Director of the NYPD Department Advocate's Office, and Director of Philadelphia Police Advisory Commission.
***
Have an op-ed idea or submission for Gotham Gazette? Email This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
***
This guest column is part of Citizens Union Speakers, a regular series of op-eds written by members of the Citizens Union Foundation community in Gotham Gazette, CUF's flagship public education program. The opinions expressed in these Citizens Union Speakers columns are those of the authors alone, not Citizens Union Foundation, Gotham Gazette, or any other entity.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Inauguration Day at City Hall (photo: Michael Appleton/Mayoral Photography Office)
It's often said being Mayor of New York City is the second toughest job in America. The challenges of governing our nation's largest city are enormous, especially now in the wake of COVID-19, the racial justice movement, and increased crime and unemployment. And as the city seems to be tilting even more to the "progressive" left, I'm reminded of the sage advice of one of our greatest mayors, Fiorello LaGuardia, that "there's no Democratic or Republican way to pick up the trash." Competence matters, and we need it now more than ever.
Leaving politics aside, any fair assessment of the last seven-plus years would have to acknowledge the shortcomings of the de Blasio administration. The barometer for judging the success of an incumbent (two-term) administration has become: "Are we better off today than we were eight years ago?" Today, few New Yorkers would answer in the affirmative. But also in fairness, Mayor de Blasio has had some notable successes in achieving his agenda. For example, he did end the "stop and frisk era," and he pushed the state into adopting universal pre-kindergarten. But there have also been major stumbles, such as the ethics scandals that nearly toppled the mayor and administration missteps during the coronavirus crisis, among others.
So what should we be looking for in our next Mayor? An outsider with a fresh perspective (like entrepreneur Andrew Yang, banker Ray McGuire, or not-for-profit executive Dianne Morales)? A long-time public servant with lots of government experience (like Brooklyn Borough President Eric Adams, City Comptroller Scott Stringer, former Sanitation Commissioner Kathryn Garcia, or former Obama and Bloomberg administration official Shaun Donovan)? Or a de Blasio administration insider who left with reputation intact (like former counsel to the Mayor and CCRB Chair Maya Wiley or Garcia)? Or one of the high-profile Republican candidates long-involved in community organizing (like Fernando Mateo or Curtis Sliwa)?
No matter which of them emerges as our next Mayor, these are the issues that will ultimately define their success, so you'll want to hear from the candidates now about how they'll address them.
Public Safety
The paramount obligation of any administration is to maintain public safety and keep New Yorkers safe. Because of the enormous drops in major crime achieved during the Giuliani and Bloomberg administrations, that issue see >med, in some sense, under control. Attention shifted further toward police-community relations and police policies that seemed to target people of color. But now, we are at a new crossroads, with violent crime rising again and still fractured relationships between police and communities. This is a particularly daunting task for our next Mayor -- to motivate police to keep us safe yet address the legitimate concerns of communities of color. The current Mayor appears to have alienated both police and communities. We have to do better, and we have to keep our City safe at the same time.
Economic Development
It's still very much "about the economy, stupid." So much of the city's financial success and tax base comes from Wall Street, yet we are a most diverse city where income equity and unemployment remain confounding issues as well, and even more so since covid. Many who could left the city during this crisis, choosing to isolate elsewhere. Now, we need to get them back for the good of all New Yorkers. The challenge for the next Mayor is to strike the right balance between encouraging economic development and job growth, while also lifting up those struggling in our city.
We need to get people back to the office, safely, and restore some sense of normalcy to our daily work lives. It takes a nuanced approach, an understanding that just raising taxes and spending more money doesn't necessarily solve problems; it can create new ones. I am among those to have suggested a major public works initiative like the Depression-era Works Progress Administration (WPA) that would directly create construction jobs and rebuild the city's crumbling infrastructure at the same time. That's a win-win. It's how a Mayor can smartly use the city's resources, leverage them into state and federal dollars, make prudent decisions, spend smart, and inspire New Yorkers to work together to achieve common goals good for all.
Public Education
After winning Albany's approval for mayoral control of the public school system 20 years ago, we haven't done enough to capitalize on that opportunity, particularly during the de Blasio years. Good riddance to Chancellor Carranza, who wasted his tenure hiring cronies and trying to change something that wasn't broken -- our elite high schools. Providing a quality education for our children of every community is something we must do better to achieve. It is the great equalizer from which so much future opportunity flows.
The next Mayor must put politics aside and appoint someone of proven competence in administering and improving large bureaucracies -- an Arne Duncan type -- whether or not an educator by background. And set your own course, instead of what the teachers union dictates to you. There's room for great charter schools and great traditional public schools in the same space. Embrace both. And commit to spending resources to improve bilingual education, so that children of every community have equal opportunity within our public school system. But one thing is certain: we have to do better than this for the sake of our children and the larger city.
Health Care
The pandemic has caused us to appreciate how important our healthcare system is and how we need to ensure access to it for all. Our city's public hospital system is by far the largest in the country. Yet quality of care and access to care remain concerns. The rollout of vaccines is a perfect example. Why is it that affluent neighborhoods like the Upper East Side have a much higher vaccination rate than many poorer communities? That's a problem of administration. But it's also a problem of fundamental fairness. Like the public education system, we need administrators of proven competence to run our public hospital system and health department. New Yorkers should expect and deserve no less, and choose a Mayor who will manage well, including by appointing the right people.
Quality of Life
I don't hear the mayoral candidates talking enough about “quality of life,” yet at its core, quality of life is what ultimately defines a city. Quality of life, of course, includes living in a safe place, having economic opportunity, being able to give your kids a decent education, and having access to good healthcare. But it also means much more.
It means keeping streets clean, maintaining great parks for recreation, and fostering a sense of community that brings neighborhoods together and makes us optimistic about our future. But our quality of life now seems under siege. For example, we are grappling with how to help our vulnerable homeless fellow New Yorkers, who, during COVID, have increasingly been housed in inadequate SRO hotels without sufficient services, overwhelming certain neighborhoods. And there's a growing perception that our city is less safe today than it was eight years ago, that economic opportunities are harder to come by, and that our best days are behind us. So ask these candidates how important they think it is to improve quality of life in our city. That will tell you a lot about their priorities and understanding of what makes a city great.
Competence
At bottom, the Mayor's job is about competence. Delivering services and achieving goals. Done right, it's a 24-7 job. The best Mayors make decisions on the merits, not politics, and they realize they have to work with state and federal officials to get things done for the good of the city. So take a good, hard look at these candidates, and ask yourself -- and them -- what is it about their record that qualifies them to run a $90-billion enterprise, manage a 330,000-person workforce, and serve the needs of 8-plus-million New Yorkers. Because, at the end of the day, there is no Democratic or Republican way to pick up the trash.
***
Randy M. Mastro is a litigation partner at Gibson Dunn and a former Deputy Mayor of New York City who chairs the Boards of Citizens Union and Citizens Union Foundation.
***
Have an op-ed idea or submission for Gotham Gazette? Email This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
***
This guest column is part of Citizens Union Speakers, a regular series of op-eds written by members of the Citizens Union Foundation community in Gotham Gazette, CUF's flagship public education program. The opinions expressed in these Citizens Union Speakers columns are those of the authors alone, not Citizens Union Foundation, Gotham Gazette, or any other entity.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Students register to vote (photo: Michael Appleton/Mayor's Office)
This guest column is part of Citizens Union Speakers, a regular series of op-eds written by members of the Citizens Union Foundation community in Gotham Gazette, CUF's flagship public education program. The opinions expressed in these Citizens Union Speakers columns are those of the authors alone, not Citizens Union Foundation, Gotham Gazette, or any other entity.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
United States Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts wrote earlier this year: “We have come to take democracy for granted and civic education has fallen by the wayside. In our age, when social media can instantly spread rumor and false information on a grand scale, the public’s need to understand US government, and the protections it provides us is ever more vital.”
The Chief Justice’s warning resonates loudly today as we face an unprecedented crisis in democracy in our country. A President who consistently lies, threatens to postpone the upcoming election, prevents Congress from exercising its oversight responsibilities, and repeatedly ignores and violates the Rule of Law. At the same time fewer and fewer Americans seem to be meaningfully participating in, or even understand, how government works. A recent survey revealed that only 26% of Americans could name all three branches of government. In the 2018 general election New York ranked in the bottom quartile in the nation in voter turnout.
At the same time we face a related crisis that if not promptly addressed will exacerbate today’s democracy crisis. Specifically, New York provides to its students a frightening lack of adequate civic education -- teaching government (its history, its different branches, and how a law is passed) and training students through hands-on projects how to become engaged in public life.
Participating in our democracy must begin by teaching students how democracy works and the importance of participation in that democracy. “The practice of democracy is not passed down through the gene pool. It must be taught and learned anew by each generation of citizens,” Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor once wrote.
This is not happening in New York. The only civic education requirement New York schools must meet is to offer a one-half unit credit in a government course, one credit in US history, and an 11th grade Regents exam in US history and government. There is no obligation that a student learn specific aspects of government, how to advocate for government to take action, or gain personal experience in advocacy.
New York’s civic education requirements stand in sharp contrast to those of a number of other states that have recently substantially increased their civic education. Massachusetts, for example, now mandates various civic education courses and requires that every student engage in at least one civic activity. Massachusetts has also established a trust fund to help localities cover the cost of meeting these requirements.
Both New York State and City have begun to take modest steps to address their deficiencies in this area.
Two years ago New York City created a Civics for All initiative designed to focus on interactive projects that students might undertake to better learn how government works. At about the same time the State created a Civic Readiness Task Force that has proposed a series of recommendations that would require students to complete an action project in civics or social justice. But even if these recommendations are enacted they are not nearly enough. In particular there are no requirements that schools adopt the proposed programs and mandate that all students engage in them, and, with the exception of a $1 million state appropriation, no funds have been provided to help schools train teachers and otherwise implement the programs.
At the present time the lack of adequate civic education has been filled in part by some excellent programs offered by certain nonprofits. But those programs themselves are hampered both by lack of funds and because they reach a relatively small percentage of all students.
There is, however, much more that many outside the school system could do – but most are presently not doing – to advance civic education. Individual judges, for example, could invite students to their courtrooms to observe judicial proceedings, and spend time with students, both in near-by schools and when the students visit their courtrooms, explaining the judicial system to them. In fact, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, recognizing, to use the words of the United States Judicial Conference, that “civic education is an important component of judicial service,” is taking the nationwide lead in doing just that.
Bar associations could offer – but unfortunately only a few are doing so today – a variety of civic education programs, ranging from mock trial and moot court activities to meeting with students to explain the justice system. Attorneys could volunteer their time to coach mock trial and moot court teams. In addition, attorneys and civic association representatives could visit classrooms to explain to students what civic engagement is and work with students on particular civic projects. And companies and law firms could support these civic efforts both financially and by sponsoring their own civic education projects.
The problem raised by this crisis in civic education must be addressed promptly. As can be seen in the events unfolding in Washington, D.C. every day, our democracy is under attack and we need more participation to make it stronger. We must take immediate steps to educate future voters -- students today -- and let them discover how government works, think about how democracy should work, and, by encouraging their actual experience in civic projects, learn how to participate in it.
***
Michael A. Cardozo is a partner at Proskauer Rose LLP and a member of the Board of Citizens Union. He served as Corporation Counsel under Mayor Bloomberg from 2002 to 2013.
***
Have an op-ed idea or submission for Gotham Gazette? Email This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
***
This guest column is part of Citizens Union Speakers, a regular series of op-eds written by members of the Citizens Union Foundation community in Gotham Gazette, CUF's flagship public education program. The opinions expressed in these Citizens Union Speakers columns are those of the authors alone, not Citizens Union Foundation, Gotham Gazette, or any other entity.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
***
Have an op-ed idea or submission for Gotham Gazette? Email This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.