3.2: History of Evolution of Multiculturalism in the United States

Where countries are changing and adding cultural and ethnic multiplicity, the police are most likely to be aligned with the old cultural and ethnic guard, or they may be perceived as such by new, or newly empowered, constituents. As a result, questions about the philosophy and practice of policing are ultimately liable to come under close and probing scrutiny.

The police operate at “street level,” where they have direct contact with all who are involved in any way with law and public safety. In fact, the police represent the sole agency with which the vast majority of those who ever have any dealings with the criminal justice system come into contact. As a result, the police have enormous power to influence attitudes and public opinion about fundamental concerns regarding a political entity’s capacity to act in just, legitimate, and accountable ways. Police-community relations are shaped on the street and in the station houses, and it is there that such controversial practices as profiling and “zero tolerance” are enacted. Using their discretionary arrest powers, the police are also the gatekeepers of the criminal justice process. They determine who is subjected to the power of the law and who is not.

Because of this unique role and powerful position in society, the police are likely both to influence and to be influenced by the social implications of migration and shifts in the political power of various communities. Rapid transformations in the relative heterogeneity of the population, and the accompanying discourse on multiculturalism, can lead to questions about the validity of definitions of laws or crimes for some groups and conceptions of “order” or “disorder” for others. Conversely, the arrival of new groups often provokes questions about the appropriateness of practicing what those groups consider “normal” domestic or familial relations, duties, or privileges. Thus, an increase in the number of ethnic, cultural, and linguistic communities and racial groups can give rise to conflicts about the legitimacy of legal and communal standards and definitions, and hence present an enormous challenge to law enforcement and order maintenance activities.

Police dealings with racial and ethnic minorities today are constrained by cultural and legal norms that are palpably different from those of the past. In the United States and elsewhere, there is a new level of cultural support for tolerance and equal treatment under the law. For America, this is a matter of cultural realities catching up with national ideals.

The United States is a nation of immigrants. From the beginning, it espoused the ideals of pluralism and equality. George Washington and other leaders thought they were creating a new race of men into which all the tribes of the world would be welcome to meld together, forming a new breed. It has taken two centuries to approach those ideals: one century to abolish slavery and another to prohibit discrimination.

The civil rights movement of the 1960s had a profound effect. Bigotry and direct discrimination still occur. But they no longer enjoy the protected status and public tolerance they once had. They are acts of individuals; not public policies enacted with the intent to discriminate. The police (and the government in general) can no longer choose sides. They must strive for impartiality or risk public denunciation and lawsuits.

For instance, the last time the United States faced the massive immigration it is experiencing today was at the end of the 19th century. Large numbers of immigrants from Southern and Eastern Europe streamed into the country. In the name of protecting the Anglo-Saxon race from mongrelization, political elites succeeded in passing immigration laws that completely prohibited the immigration of Asians and placed restrictive quotas on the immigration of Italians, Slavs, and Jews.

Such patent discrimination is now unthinkable. Immigration restrictions were eliminated in the 1960s and 1970s as the norms against discrimination began permeating the culture. The impact of this change on policing can be seen in various examples. In 1954, state and local police throughout the southwestern states joined with the federal government to conduct a massive deportation of Mexican workers who were in the country illegally. Over a few weeks, 100,000 Mexicans were rounded up and expelled in what was officially called Operation Wetback. Radio stations called upon people to turn in suspected illegal immigrants. No apology was made, either for the use of ethnic slur “wetback” or for the harassment of Mexican American citizens who were caught up in the dragnet.

In contrast, in 1997 the Chandler (Arizona) Police Department joined with the Federal Border Patrol to round up and deport 400 illegal Mexicans. In the process, they stopped several people who appeared to be Mexican and demanded to see their migration papers. The people were Americans and they objected. They filed a $32 million lawsuit against the city and won. Moreover, the Arizona Attorney General issued a scathing criticism of the police. A human relations officer and a Hispanic police liaison officer were appointed. Police officers were required to attend 1,500 hours of classes on cultural awareness and hate crimes.