New Jersey Lifts Prisons’ Ban On ‘New Jim Crow’ After ACLU Scrutiny

(Photo by Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post via Getty Images)
|
January 8, 2018 10:08 a.m.

Update, 1:47 p.m.: This post has been updated to reflect a new statement from the New Jersey Department of Corrections reversing a ban at some prisons on “The New Jim Crow.”

The New Jersey Department of Corrections lifted a ban at some state prisons on Michelle Alexander’s acclaimed 2010 book “The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness” following scrutiny that began with an ACLU public records request.

In a statement reported by WHYY’s Joe Hernandez, NJDOC said it would lift book’s ban in all facilities where it had been in effect, in addition to reviewing the department’s policy and current banned books lists.

Newsletters
Get TPM in your inbox, twice weekly.
Your subscription could not be saved. Please try again.
Your subscription has been successful.

The restriction had been notable, given the book’s focus on what it characterizes as a racial caste system perpetuated through harsh drug laws and mass incarceration, even as thousands of books are banned from prisons nationwide.

Several outlets reported Monday on the open records request, and on the ACLU’s response: that the prisons were illegally blocking the book based on its content, rather than any danger or hinderance it posed to the facilities’ operation.

“It is one thing to prevent incarcerated people from reading how-to manuals about lock picking; it is something altogether different to deny people access to a book that ‘offers a timely and original framework for understanding mass incarceration,’” ACLU-NJ staff attorney Tess Borden and senior supervising attorney Alexander Shalom wrote Monday to the New Jersey Department of Corrections, quoting a review of Alexander’s book from Ben Jealous, the former president of the NAACP.

“The banning of a particular book such as The New Jim Crow — as compared, for example, to a ban on hardcovers — represents content-based censorship on publications,” they added later, before citing the Supreme Court in Turner v. Safley and Thornburgh v. Abbott. “Such censorship is lawful only upon a showing that the prohibition is ‘reasonably related to legitimate penological interests.'”

Aside from First Amendment violations, the ACLU lawyers wrote that the ban also violated the New Jersey Administrative Code, which specifies that prisons can only ban publications containing information about drugs when the material “is detrimental to the secure and orderly operation” of the prisons.

Latest Livewire
Comments are now Members-Only

Non-members are still able to read comments, but will no longer be able to participate. To join the conversation, sign up now and get:

30% Off Annual Prime Membership

TPM strives to build as inclusive a community as financially possible. We offer FREE memberships to those experiencing financial hardship and FREE memberships for students.

View all options
Comments
Masthead Masthead
Founder & Editor-in-Chief:
Executive Editor:
Managing Editor:
Associate Editor:
Editor at Large:
General Counsel:
Publisher:
Head of Product:
Director of Technology:
Associate Publisher:
Front End Developer:
Senior Designer: