≫ And then the last piece I 
guess
I should mention is the
interpreter swap that we're 
going to try to have no delay 
there.
So we'll get some sort of 
message
in the chat when the swap is 
happening, and I'll try
to be attentive to that and slow
us down or pause for a second.
I think that's everything.  If I
miss something, let me  know.
≫ The one other thing is just 
getting questions from the 
audience
, Garrett will be  getting knows
from one of the folks
from Haymarket, Dana in the 
YouTube chat, so when we move
to that section, he'll be the 
one who is going to be  reading 
out the questions.
I typed this in the chat, but I 
just activated the stream, so 
it's running.
It's hitting, you all are 
hidden, so you can test the 
captions now.
≫ Testing captions.
≫ This is
Roxanne, we're  getting the 
stream and everything set up.
I did want to let you know that 
Stevie
will be an audio recording, the 
interpreter
, the hearing interpreter Mandy 
-- it's not a video recording, 
it's an audio recording.
≫ Yes.
≫ Instead of video.
≫ The other thing to let the 
team know, Mandy, is -- sorry.
≫ She's just giving the 
information that Stevie is 
currently
incarcerated and will be unable 
to join for a video stream 
today.
And then Niesha check
ing if the audio recording will 
be picked up by the  captions.
≫ So what I was -- this is what 
I was going to say.
It won't, but we've precaptioned
the vast majority of it.
They also -- there's also no way
to interpose any image over it, 
unfortunately.
So the interpreters won't be on 
screen when that's happening, 
unfortunately.  But it does have
the captions.
≫ Just to clarify, you said the 
audio clip has  captions?
≫ Correct.  The vast majority of
it.
The captions are preimposed.  
It's just part of the video.
And FYI, the panelists
, I actually only just realized 
this as well, you all won't
be hearing Stevie at those 
points
.
So what I'm going to  do, I have
them uploaded.
And I will send you a link to 
where
they -- this isn't where I'll be
make them from,
but I'll send you the link so 
you can at least watch along.
Or rather actually Garrett, I'm 
going to ask Dana
to send that to you, if you can 
share that in the chat.  I'm on 
multiple devices here.  Sorry 
about that.
≫ When we play the clips from 
Stevie, I
should share with the panelists 
the link you send me?  Or that 
Dana sends me?
I'm wondering, Dana is in a text
thread, maybe she could just 
post it there.  Directly
≫ That would be great.
≫ Okay.  I think do that.
≫ Rukia, we couldn't see you 
before, but now we can.
≫ Okay.
You're quite quiet, though
.
And your camera keeps going off.
I don't know what switch usual 
making but it turns off your 
camera
.
≫ RUKIA: it's doing something by
itself.  Can you all see me?
It muted myself and it 
automatically cut the camera 
off.
≫ That's the same problem 
Derecka was having.  I've never 
run into that before.
≫ RUKIA: it just started doing 
that.  I don't know.  Is my 
volume okay?
≫ I can hear you more.
≫ GARRETT: it's still quiet.
≫ This is Topher.
Is it possible to have the 
panelists or yourself
, John, fill some air time so we
can
get more practice with the 
pacing of the captions
and comparing the visual 
interpretation for Mandy
and the way the captions appear 
on screen?
≫ We can delay going live.  
We're about three minutes from 
when we would normally start.  
How much time do you think you 
need?
≫ Do we feel like three minutes 
is enough time?  Three, five?
Seems like three should be okay.
≫ GARRETT: I'm fine if you need 
to be doing other things, I can 
just keep talking or reading 
what I'm going to read.
≫ I think the question is if 
it's possible to actual hi have 
more time for them
to work out the syncing.
≫ GARRETT: okay.
≫ Unless I'm misunderstanding.
If you need somebody to talk I'm
happy to babble while I'm doing 
other things.
≫ Yes, John, if you could 
babble, that would be great.
≫ Okay.
Yeah, I'm currently trying to 
work out how I can open a 
browser
window while my computer is 
running at capacity for the 
call, so
as to grab the link to give to 
Dana to send to Garrett
.  I don't think I can do that, 
so I'm asking if she can find 
that and share it over to you.
I'm probably  speaking faster 
than other people will be as 
well, so apologies about that.  
But you asked for babble.
≫ Doing great, thank you.
≫ Cool.
Is that good, or do you need me 
to keep going?
≫ It appears -- if you could 
keep going.
≫ Okay, yeah.
We have -- we're doing 
everything we --
this is the first time we're 
doing this kind of full
suite of accessibility things, 
so 
apologies about the running late
and all the rest of it.  I hope 
it goes well.
We're very happy to be able to 
make it as accessible as 
possible
.  And I'm also glad that my 
computer
hasn't crashed, I was worried I 
might have to
switch midstream with everybody 
coming on, but it's handling it 
and we're going to be great.
I'll be moderating it closely as
we go, but I think it
should shall fine, bus we have 
fewer video feeds now
than we did at the max, and this
is where it will be for most of 
the event.
I'm hoping, Garrett, that Dana 
will be able to track that link 
down for you.  I am --
≫ GARRETT: she just shared it 
with us.
I have a couple G mail accounts 
so it's figuring out which one
≫ Cool.
Just so everybody knows, what 
Garrett will be sharing are
audio clips that I've just put a
very basic
slide over top of for Stevie to 
participate via prerecorded 
statement.
Plus some responses to questions
from a podcast, maybe it's just 
a straight radio show that he 
did
≫ GARRETT: it's a radio.
So what I should do then
is, I should say the clip number
every time, right, because for 
the panelists they're going to 
have
to click clip one, two, three, 
four.
≫ That will be helpful for me 
too.
QOIG for John but also Rukia,
Derecka, Rachel, I'll say some 
introduction and the clip
number for each of the five, and
then you can just hit
play in the text and hear what 
everyone else is hearing.
≫ Right now they're talking 
about the different strategies 
they're using for captions
, because Topher appears to have
less of --
time than Niesha does, so Topher
is
sharing -- that he's seen in the
past
≫ Sorry about that.  YouTube is 
a little buggy unfortunately.
So we have
about 220 people watching 
already just our countdown timer
on zero.  Which is fine.
≫ GARRETT: Derecka is still 
there?  I don't see Derecka.
≫ I'm seeing Derecka is on the 
call.
≫ I'm here.
≫ Cool.
We're getting soundoffs from 
folks who are waiting, people
from Chicago, Colorado springs, 
from Denver, Atlanta
, Mississippi, Oakland, 
Starkville, Goshen, Seattle, 
Austin,
Jackson, Mississippi, south 
Philly
.  Portland.
≫ Just an update on interpreters
after having that discussion,
we're going to have Topher start
.
≫ Okay, great.  That's fine.
Momentarily Niesha will appear 
on the screen but I'll switch it
off as quick as I can.
≫ John should I send you the 
link for the Google doc via 
chat?
≫ That would be great, thank 
you.
≫ This is Niesha.  Just a 
question.
While Topher is interpreting 
should
I -- I don't want to disturb the
real estate that we have on the 
screen.
≫ I lost you for a second 
because I accidentally clicked 
the link instead of copying it.
I think the question was whether
Niesha should turn off camera
and Topher should turn off 
camera while the other is 
interpreting.  Is that right?
≫ Yes.
Shuz I, Niesha, while Topher is 
interpreting, turn
off my camera so that way
Topher is the only potential 
screen up,
or can I leave my screen on and
we just switch between pinning 
the interpr interpreters?
≫ Whatever is more comfortable.
If they want a moment with the 
camera not on, that's fine.  But
you don't have to turn it off.
≫ Oh, okay.  Learn something 
new.  All right.  I guess I'll 
leave it on then.
Tory is clarifying. -- Topher is
clarifying.  Question for the 
interpreter team.
≫ Okay.
Do we think we're good to say in
a minute we'll go live?  Does 
that sound good to everybody?
≫ GARRETT: can I ask one quick 
question?
So we should make sure the 
panelists that when we're 
listening to Stevie's clip we're
muted.
≫ Yes.
≫ Fortunately I can mute you 
during that, so you won't 
disrupt the
broadcast but it will be 
disruptive for you all.
Dwoig we can handle ourselves
.
≫ Did you already send that 
Garrett?
≫ GARRETT: Dana should be 
sending it
.  Dana says I cannot share it 
as I am not the owner, it's 
blocking me from sharing.
John can cannot open it now as 
it will crash the livestream.   
John, any thoughts?
≫ I will write back to Dana.
≫ I know there's going to be a 
lot of excitement with starting 
the
live stream, and if we could 
just
announce the
≫ Initially I'm going to have 
the captioner in the smaller of 
the screens.  I think it's going
to be big enough.
If it's not, let me know in the 
chat and I'll switch it out.
≫ Can we do a countdown and 
throw it over to you, Garrett?
≫ GARRETT: I don't want
≫ GARRETT: Hi, welcome and 
thanks to everyone joining us 
from around the world.
I'm Garrett Felber, I use 
he/they pronouns and I'm an
assistant professor of 
African-American history at the 
University
of  Mississippi and one of the 
organizers of Study and  
Struggle.
I'll be moderating  tonight's 
conversation, Abolition as Study
and Deconstructing Racial 
Capitalism Capitalism.
Which is the first of four 
critical conversations this fall
hosted by Haymarket Books.
To see our future schedule
, visit our website, 
studyandstruggle.com and click 
the webinars tab.
Study and Struggle is intended 
to build radical community 
across
boundaries, whether they be 
national borders or prison  
walls.
Our four-month curriculum was 
produced by a team of schors
, community organizers, and 
currently and formerly inscarce
rated people, including two of 
our panelists tonight, Rukia 
Lumumba, and Stephen Wilson.
It centers the interrelationship
between prison abolition and
immigrant justice, with a 
particular focus on the 
histories
and ongoing freedom struggles in
Mississippi and the south
.  We currently have over a 
hundred reading groups around 
the world
, a dozen of which are in 
prisons in Mississippi, and we
hope these groups become radical
communities unto
themselves, which are connected 
to one another through our pen
pal program and to our larger 
community which we
-- when we come together once a 
month for conversations like 
these
.  Our critical conversations 
will discuss the key
concepts for the upcoming month 
and we're absolutely thrilled to
have
such a fantastic group of 
organizers tonight to launch our
inaugural program.
Before I introduce the speakers,
I want to thank the organizers
and sponsors of this 
conversation, our entire Study 
and Struggle team, and Haymarket
Books.
It's critical that we support 
independent publishers and 
grass-roots organizations during
this time.  And you can do that 
in a couple of ways.
First, by buying books from 
Haymarket and joining the 
Haymarket Books Club.
Second, by supporting the dozen 
of Study and Struggle
groups outside Mississippi which
have indicated financial need 
through our Go Fund Me, which 
will be linked in the chat.
And finally, if you're in a 
position to make a donation,
no matter how small, be a
Venmo there will be a card on 
the screen about how to do this 
and folks posting in the YouTube
chat as well.
All donations from tonight 
including the registration 
donation that you may have
already made, will go to the 
Mississippi Prison Reform 
Coalition
, which is  working to decars 
rate, provide support to
formerly incarcerated people, 
and shut down prison
this video will be shared 
afterward on the Haymarket Books
YouTube channel as well as our 
website.
Please subscribe to the 
Haymarket channel, like this 
video
now, and share it with as many 
people as possible
.  I also want to let everyone 
know about an upcoming event
in the Haymarket live stream 
series, tomorrow night, please 
join us
for Unforgetting, Family, My 
Grace, Gangs,
Borders, and Revolution, with
Robertio Lovato and Mike Davis.
You can register and the links 
to sign up are being posted in 
the chat.
A few housekeeping items.
For folks who want to follow the
chat, we suggest you use the top
chat option rather than the live
chat.
If you're following along on 
social media tonight, please use
#studyandstruggle 
#studyandstrugglegloif.
Peoplewho 
violatecommunityguidelinesglovew
illhavecommentsdeleteed.
With we may need your patients 
the if we have any technical 
issues,
if your stream gets choppy it 
might be helpful to reduce your 
image quality.
If our YouTube feed is 
interrupted for any reason, you 
may need
to navigate back to the YouTube 
Haymarket books page.
The feed should resume there in 
case of an interruption.
This event will have live closed
captions, to
enable those, click the CC 
button on the bottom of the 
video.
If you're having any trouble 
with the closed captions there 
will be a link
in the chat to the raw caption 
feed for Deaf and hard of 
hearing folks.
We're incredibly grateful to 
have our interpreter and 
captioning team supporting us 
tonight and
to Hurd for developing tonight's
accessibility strategy
.  Shoulder an abolitionist 
organization that supports
deaf and disabled communities  
impacted by the cars ral system.
Which includes supporting the 
work of language justice
.
We have a Deaf centered model of
ASL interpretation.
To support the work, please see 
the donation link in the chat.
Please post your questions in 
the chat and we'll get to those 
later in the program.
Now it's my pleasure to 
introduce our wonderful speakers
tonight and begin our program.
Rachel Herzing is the executive 
director of the Center for 
Political Education
.  A resource for political 
organizations on the left, 
progressive
social movements, the working 
class, and people of chor.
Rachel has played roles as an 
organizer, activist,
and advocate fighting the 
violence of policing and  
imprisonment
.  Derecka Purnell is a human 
rights lawyer,  writer, and 
organizer.
Since graduating from Harvard 
Law School, she's worked to
end police and prison violence 
nationwide by providing
legal assistance, research, and 
trainings to community-based 
organizations through an 
abolitionist framework.
Derecka is currently a columnist
at the guardian and
deputy director of the Spirit of
Justice Center.
Stephen Wilson is a currently 
incarcerated, Black queer  
writer, activist, and student.
For over two decades, he was 
active in the ballroom
community and worked a as an HIV
prevention specialist and 
community organizer.
His work and practice inherit 
teachings from prison
abolition, transformative and 
racial justice, Black
feminist theory, and gender and 
queer liberation
.  Stevie is currently doing 30 
days of
solitary confinement as an act 
of retaliation by the prison.
Bear with us as we patch 
together a combination of phone 
recordings and
previous interviews with Stevie 
in response to the themes for 
this conversation.
It's crucial that incarcerated 
people be centered in 
conversations about  abolition.
So we appreciate your 
flexibility as we try out this 
format
.  Since this event will be 
transcribed and sent to all
of our inside study groups, I 
want to take a moment to
say to our incarcerated 
comrades, we love you
, we're studying and fighting 
with you, and you are here with 
us tonight.
We'll also have a shied with 
Stevie's address during the 
conversation,
and I know whread love to hear 
from you all, so please consider
sending him a letter of support.
And last, certainly not least,
Rukia Lumumba is the executive 
director of the  people's 
advocacy institute
, colead of the Electoral 
Justice
Project of the Movement for 
Black Lives and a steering 
committee
and cochair of the legal 
committee of the Mississippi 
Prison Reform Coalition.
She was also a coproducer of the
incredible Black
National Convention this last 
weekend, which I believe is 
still available to watch online 
if you missed it.
And Rukia is one of our dear 
comrades in Study and Struggle 
as well,
and we're so grateful to have 
her with us tonight.
We'll begin this evening as we 
do in all of our  conversations 
by hearing one of our -- from 
one of our Mississippi partners.
So Rukia will start by sharing a
bit about the Mississippi prison
reform coalition and their work 
in the state and we'll move to 
the Q and A format.
≫ RUKIA: hey, everybody.
Thank you, Garrett, thank you 
for having me, thanks to 
everyone
who is listening tonight who is 
tuning in
.  Sincere thanks and 
appreciation
to all of our loved ones and all
of our
folks inside, our  friends, our 
family that are
inside behind cages, thank you 
for letting
all of us out here fight with 
you, fight for you in this 
struggle.  Sincere thanks.
And big appreciation to the 
entire
team at the Mississippi Prison 
Reform Coalition
.  Again, my name is Rukia 
Lumumba, I am very
thankful to be here tonight to 
share a little bit about the 
work we're doing here in 
Mississippi.
Mississippi has the highest 
incarceration rate in the world.
On December 29th, 19 -- 2019
, people incarcerated inside of
the penitentiary and other 
Mississippi Department of  
Correction prison
s led an  uprising, exposing
horrific conditions and 
treatment inside of prisons.
Weeks later the Department of 
Corrections --
the Department of Justice opened
an investigation
into this penitentiary and 
several other Mississippi 
prisons
.  But the COVID-19 pandemic 
halted the investigation.
Resulting in continued abuse and
neglect.
In the last six months, 59 
incarcerated people have died.
There have been 382 confirmed
COVID cases that we know of
.  To make matters worse, 
governor AT&T Reeves of the
state of Mississippi vetoed 
life-saving parole reform.
The Mississippi Prison Reform 
Coalition was
reactivateed in January of
2020, and a resulting directly
from the uprising of our folks 
inside inside.
It is a group bhaid up of 
incarcerated
, formerly
incarcerated people, families 
with loved ones currently
incarcerated, advocacy 
organizations, and concerned 
residents
demanding the state of 
Mississippi immediately reduce 
the prison
population, remove harmful 
conditions and policies that are
harming our folks on the inside,
and restore humanity
by closing the prison completely
completely.
Immediately we are asking that 
the
Mississippi legislature override
the governor's veto of Senate 
Bill 2123.
So we're asking everyone who is 
listening tonight
to please take this call of 
action with
us and call Mississippi state
legislators and demand they 
override the governor's
veto of Senate Bill
2123, which would have provided
life-saving parole reform to
many people currently 
incarcerated in Mississippi.
I thank you all again for this 
opportunity, and I look forward 
to continuing the conversation 
tonight.
Thank you again, Garrett, and 
the entire Study and Struggle 
community.
≫ GARRETT: thank you, Rukia.
We're going to begin our 
discussion portion
and I'm going to have each of 
the
panelists begin by sort of self-
self-introducing your work 
through study.
What role Study has played in
your journey to abolition and 
we're going to begin with 
Stevie.
He was able to record a clip 
this last weekend talking about 
the importance of Study for him 
with a comrade.
So we'll start with that clip 
number one, John.
≫ GARRETT: If we could start 
with you, Rachel, and your 
responses to
Stevie and an introduction to 
your own life's work
as it relates to Study and 
abolition.
≫ RACHEL: Thank you so much for 
having me this afternoon.
And thank you also to everybody 
who is
participating in Study and 
Struggle inside and outside of 
prisons.
I would agree with Stevie that I
think Study is a very
important tool, not only to kind
of dealing with
our own conditions, but also
for us to build community with 
each other and I would
also agree that it is best not 
done alone.
I direct an organization that is
dedicated to
working with other organizations
and movements
in order to use study as a tool 
for strengthening their work.
So from that perspective, I 
think we would
take an approach to the idea of 
prison
industrial complex abolition 
which is the kind of
abolition I'll be talking about 
tonight
.  We would take that approach 
that says that
Study, that acknowledges the
central role that Study  plays 
no matter how well
we do it, won't eliminate the 
prison industrial complex.
I'm going to say that a slightly
different way, because I said it
in a complicated way.
No matter how good we are at 
studying
,  studying alone is not going 
to abolish the prison industrial
complex.
I think our orientation is more
that study is essential to 
organizing for the abolition of 
the prison industrial complex.
And we need study to organize 
well
.  So I happen to be an 
overeducated
person who has had the benefit 
of lots of formal education.
And I'm also someone who's 
benefited from very good 
movement education.
I'm not a fan, however, of study
for its own sake.
I think our best education is 
put in service of making change.
So that change might be a change
in our
own conditions, we might need
a GED to get a job, or we might 
need to be
able to read to fill out a 
housing application, or to apply
for benefits.
But if we're talking about study
for prison industrial
complex abolition, then our 
study needs
to be in service of 
fundamentally transforming
the conditions that sustain 
surveillance,
policing, sentencing, 
imprisonment, and execution.  
Our study has to be put to work.
So I'm not sure what I think
about the frame of study 
abolition as study, that didn't 
make a ton of sense to  me.
I think I might say study
for abolition or study
for struggle, so that we never 
lose track
of the fact that change is our 
ultimate goal
.  And not study for the sake of
study
.
≫ GARRETT: Thank you, Rachel.
Derecka, do you want to 
introduce yourself and your work
through your experience with 
study?
≫ DERECKA: Sure.  Sure.
Thank you again for the 
invitation,
Garrett, it's so good to see you
again, even though not in the 
flesh.
Rukia, I don't think I've seen 
you since I've seen Garrett in 
Mississippi.  It was ages ago.
And Rachel, I'm so lucky the 
last person I saw,
the last time I flew in Miami 
had I known that would have been
the last time I would have 
hugged you tighter.  So thank 
you so much, again, for the 
invitation.
One thing that Stevie said that 
stood out to me
is that studying helps you 
become a better person
, and helps you develop better 
relationships, and
helps you develop a greater 
sense of yourself to the 
environment
.  So sort of this three-prong
ed -- this  three-pronged 
approach to
how he -- it actually remined me
of when I was in law school, and
most of
my organizing has been through 
studenting.
Way back in high school, the 
student senate, the walkouts, 
all of that was so much a part 
of my life.
And I was a student organizer 
through college, but it wasn't
actually until law school where 
I started to become politicized 
around political education.
I hadn't heard this phrase the 
first phrase I
heard -- place I heard it said 
was Robin Kelly
.  What's the political 
education starter kit?  What do 
I need to read?
And Robin said, well, I can't 
tell you what to read for your
political education, you have to
get with some people and
decide what political education 
makes sense for your struggle
.  And I was like, so first you 
tell me that
political education exists, but 
you're not even go tell me what 
to do with it?  I gotta figure 
that out?
I'm so, so, so happy that I was 
a part of
a student movement with people 
who
have politics much further left 
than mine at the time.
People who were politicized 
through other
movements, who knew that study 
was a part
of their experiences, but the 
most of us were not there.  Most
of us were not there.
If anything, we thought that our
organizing demands were just the
right thing.
We figured we were smart enough,
nice enough, we figured we were 
kind enough and curious enough,
and our demands, they were just 
the right thing to do
.  Why wouldn't Harvard Law 
School want to hire a diversity,
access, and inclusion officer?  
Why wouldn't they want to hire 
more Black staff?
And it wasn't until I went to
south Africa and there were 
students
who were organizing around
their  movement, and they were 
literally reading and
sitting down and having plenary,
and making
real time decisions based on 
what they why reading.
And I was, like, oh, I think 
this is what Robin may be 
talking about!
It was the first time I was 
seeing study and struggle part 
of the same space.
So when I went back to school 
from that studies abroad 
research project, we started 
reading.
We developed a reading list with
the help
of Dream Defender Act I think 
her name was also Rukia, but I 
need to double-check.
We created a  reading list, we 
read
books the first thing we Ree
was something Robin Kelly us, 
since he inspired us to think 
more critically.
We ended up throwing our demands
away.  We said, these demands 
are trash!
It wasn't enough to be good or 
Tosh nice
, or to be kind or to have ideas
that made sense.  We needed a 
political analysis.
We needed to call in to question
the role that Harvard was 
playing in society.
We needed to call into question 
that Harvard was playing in the 
community
of Cambridge and Boston, we 
needed toal into question
our relationship to the 
institution as students, as 
Black students
, as queer students, as students
from poor and
impoint of viewished and 
exploited backgrounds.  Our 
entire analysis shifted.
So it went from one team, 
critical
theory program, to implementing 
our own critical race theory 
program.  And inviting critical 
race theories.
And we  ultimately created the 
only space on campus where 
anyone could teach.
It didn't matter if you were 
part of the dining services team
, custodial worker, you were a 
student, if you were a clinical
faculty, we created the 
environment
that we thought that we could 
just convince Harvard to become.
And that was so, so, so 
transformative to me.
So now when I talk to law 
students I try to say
, yes, it's important you learn 
constitutional
law, the constitution is 
important, that's what you're 
supposed to graduate law school 
trying to defend.
But the most important thing you
can do
is find your people and start to
cultivate a political analysis.
Because what you think may be 
good, or make
those intuitive, you've been 
socialized to believe that.
And now you have to do the deep 
work of
critically rethinking all of 
what made you possible and to do
that with other  people.  I'll 
stop there.
≫ GARRETT: thank you, Derecka.
Rukia, take us through your 
journey a bit.
≫ RUKIA: so I -- first of all, I
have to say thank you for this, 
this panel
.  Because honestly, Rachel
, I just truly have followed
your work for a very long time, 
and just, you are one of
our guides in this movement.  
And just really grateful for 
you.
And then Derecka, you know, I 
just love all that you're doing,
and I appreciate you.
And Garrett, thank you for 
continuing to center
Mississippi, oftentimes we don't
have that, so I appreciate that
.  So for me, I grew up
an activist, Black nationalist 
household.
And so
my parents were intentional 
about letting
us, you negotiation learn on our
own
as opposed to forcing material 
on us.
But I had a privileged 
experience
around academia, around
study in terms of just being 
able to and
overhear conversations about
particular books and about 
strategies, and
theories, and this, that, and 
the third.
So I recognize that, and so I 
come into this work
having grew up in literally from
in the womb,
like hearing these things over 
and over and over again,
so to some extent I don't know 
what it is to be
without having some type of 
analysis around
our freedom, and around 
abolition, and around
what that kind of looks like
.  And that's just my reality, 
but I
think what always struck
me was my biggest concern
, and continues to be my 
concern,
is our  ability, including my 
own
ability, to study,
to recognize the struggle, and 
be in it, and then to act.  
Right?  To experiment.
And oftentimes for me, it's that
action
and that experimentation, and
then continued study, like 
realizing
it's a circular process that we 
have to actually experiment and 
continue to study at the same 
time.
That I'm still trying to push 
myself to consistently do.
And so that's the challenge that
I
often talk about with others, is
how do we
create origin to really lay the
foundation for the 
transformative
systems that we want to see in 
the future for our view
of what abolition may look like 
in our future
, if we don't just go ahead and 
jump out there and do it and 
experiment a little bit.
And so for me, the purpose of
study has become the purpose of 
actually also experimenting.
So, like, taking that journey, 
and
so this conversation is really 
rich for me
right now, because it
is further making me challenge 
that notion, and really
engage deeper in study, and 
engage deeper in
study with a recommitment to 
engage deeper
in study with our community as 
well
here in  jackson, around how do
we engage in that study in ways 
where everybody
feels that the information is 
accessible
.  How do
we do huge film screenings of 
books
that we're reading to make it 
accessible
for folks who aren't going to be
able to sit down and
read a 400-page book in a month 
or so?
Because literally, they're tired
after getting off work.  Or for 
a myriad of other reasons.
Literacy, right, in Mississippi,
illiteracy in Mississippi is 
super high.
How do we actually decrease that
and do something like Cuba did 
with the literacy project?
How do we begin to make it more 
accessible for our folks?
I'm going off into a tangent, so
I'm going to slow down and
stop now, but for me the study 
piece is about sharing
that study process with 
community, making it more 
accessible and experimentation. 
Thank you.
≫ GARRETT: thank you, Rukia.
So I think we're going to hear 
another clip from Stevie
that I think speaks a little bit
to Derecka's point about kind
of wanting the desire when you 
hear about
political education for a 
blueprint, so Stevie is
going to lay out some of the 
different groups that
he participates in inside, and 
this is
from an interview that he did on
abolitionist study with Rust 
Belt Abolition Radio in  
Michigan.
I want to give them a shout out 
for letting us use this clip.
I'd love to hear from all of you
a little bit
about some of the nitty gritty 
of how you've structured study
groups, not just what you read, 
but how were you in
community, what were the ways 
that you sort of
got to these issues of  access, 
of building community through 
study?  So we'll listen to that 
clip first.
And this is clip number two, 
John.
≫ GARRETT: So Rachel, we'll 
start back with you again.
I just returning to this 
question about how you
structure study through the
Center for Political Education, 
and maybe if you would speak to 
also the
-- something you touched upon in
your previous remarks
about how this isn't -- we're 
not talking about
neutral study, we're talking 
about something that's used to 
build power.  How do we use 
study as a way to build  power?
≫ RACHEL: I think a lot of what 
Stevie laid out in
his response are also things 
that I've experienced
over my time in
organizations, doing political 
education, but
also that we use at the
Center for Political Education 
as well
.  Developing shared language I 
think is  really, really 
crucial.
And that's not to tell
everybody that you have to speak
exactly the same
way, but I do think that it 
matters that there's
a shared understanding of what 
we're getting at.
And that also there's an 
acknowledgment that
the language that we use
has  power, but also can do 
certain kinds of work.
So as little
one little example of that, 
Derecka has been
abused by me around, I want 
everybody to stop
using the word "officer" in 
reference to COs and in 
reference to cops.  They do not 
deserve that kind of deference. 
So do not call them an officer.
But to understand the mitt call 
nature -- the political nature 
of that language.
Or to understand that
everything is not everything 
when it comes to abolitions
, but there are very specific 
kinds of politics that that 
entails.
I appreciate Stevie raising that
.  I want to come back to 
something that Rukia
mentioned that I think is 
really, really important, I was 
grateful
you brought it up, Rukia, which 
is experimentation.
If we are developing a practice
, if we're studying and then 
applying and studying
, and applying, our practice 
gets better
, but also our analysis gets 
better
.  And moving back and forth I
think and understanding that 
what we
learn is only as useful as what 
we are able to make it do.
And that what we do has to be 
inform
informed by an understanding of 
what's possible.
And I don't mean what the state 
tells
us is possible, but I mean 
developing
a hypothesis about the  
conditions that we're living 
under, and where we want to go.
And having that inform rather 
than as Derecka was saying, 
we're just good kids with good 
ideas.
So we do study
at the Center for Political 
Education in a bunch of 
different ways.
We do some
formal study groups, like read a
thing, discuss it, watch a 
thing, discuss it.
We do some classes,
where like Derecka recently came
to a class we held
where there's a curriculum, and 
we
spend time trying to go over 
core concepts, and we have guest
speakers.
We also
do things that are a little 
different, so we'll show
films, or we'll
have -- bring together 
organizations to be in strategic
conversation together.
And to my mind, those 
conversation
s are also places where 
political education happens.
Because we're having to 
articulate what we
think, we're hearing from 
others, hopefully we're
engaging in a principle struggle
and that makes
us fight smarter, I think.  
Which to my mind is the goal.
I want everybody to get more of 
what we want
and need, and so we need to 
fight as smart as
possible to be able to do that.
The last thing I think I'll say 
about
that is that I think
there's a way
that -- I don't know, back and
forth study that I've done with 
people inside
also, has been through
maybe correspondence, or maybe 
through phone calls, or 
something like that.
And some of that has
been, you know, we read 
something together and with 
discuss it,
some of the way that Stevie was 
describe can
.  But also just
-- I think this thing, tell me 
what you think about that.
And I do think that having
conversations with  people, with
whom you are either
already politically engaged or 
you'd like to be politically
engaged, goes a very, very long 
way for some of the reasons I 
was talking about before.  So 
I'll leave it there.
That might not be quite as nitty
gritty as you hoped, but
I bet Rukia and Derecka both 
have good things to say about 
that too.
≫ GARRETT: all right, Derecka, 
you have to get 90ier and 
grittier, then.  It's on  you.
≫ DERECKA: 90ier and  grittier 
-- 90yer and grittier.
Okay, I'm wearing my emans 
imagination project T-shirt.
When I got out of law school I 
became a political education  
zealot.
I said, everyone has to know 
about this political education 
thing, we have to take this show
on the road.
So my supervise then, who
is good friends with Rachel, he 
said, okay, this is
your first shot out of law 
school, what's the plan?  What 
is it that you want to take on? 
And I said, political education.
We have to do political 
education.
The justice project to make sure
that we have an analysis.  And 
he was like, what?  It was so, 
so funny.
But over time I'm so grateful 
that he
gave me space to do that, not 
only at the project, but with my
partner.  So I'm born and raised
in St. Louis, I'm from St.
Louis, I consider it my 
hometown, I'm very proud of it.
And I had a chance through the 
advancement project to go back 
to St.
Louis to work with organizers 
there and through Action St.
Louis, around BIPOC, and with 
the Ferguson Collaborative.
On the Department of Justice 
consent decree with the Ferguson
Police Department.
One of the first things that we 
did was political education.
Because if we're going to work 
towards building a campaign
, the number one question, how 
do we know that
this -- where is our political 
commitment, where
are our principles, what is our 
shared vocabulary?
So when I started talking about 
abolition, and everybody was 
like, whoa, whoa, pump the 
brakes!  What are you talking 
about?
Oh, yeah, we probably should 
read and talk to some people
.  So one of the first things we
did in Ferguson was read a book 
about policing.
And so we were trying to figure 
out, okay, if we're going to
have a consent decree, whose 
primary
purpose is going to attempt to 
improve the police
department, and the people in 
this room, the organizers in
this room have a spectrum of 
what they
believe are about policing, you 
have people
who want community policing, 
whatever that means, and you 
have people who are 
abolitionists.
So how do we start developing an
analysis to figure
out how to approach this descent
-- consent decree?
Ultimately we decided to focus 
on parts of the decree
, parts of the consent decree 
that removed harm from people 
who lived in Ferguson.
So we focused on  getting cases 
dismissed, for example,
we focused on having fewer
interactions between police 
officers and civilians, we 
focused
on giving feedback on the use of
force policies
within the police departments to
increase the number of touches 
that
they could not do when they came
into the police counter.
So we started using -- we  
started to mold and shape our
analysis around the institution 
of policing,
and then that helped form our 
organizing.
The very first political 
education
conversation that we had was 
around abolition.
And it was because people who 
were a part of the campaign
really loved and just had such a
special place
in our heart for the work that 
Access St.
Louis was doing, but weren't 
quite convinced that we could 
close a jail.
So the first session that we did
was what about the murderers, 
what about the rapists?
And we put scenarios all
across the wall, and we walked 
through each one of those 
scenarios.
And then not only did we ask 
questions like
, what about the murderers and 
what about the rapists
, I asked people in the room, 
why do people kill people?  Why 
do people kill people?
Because what about the murderers
doesn't even get to the heart 
often what people are afraid of.
So then we came up with this 
grand list of why people kill 
people.
And then we talked about ways to
prevent that and ways to respond
after it happened.
And so from that campaign having
a group of people who were half 
skeptical about
the project of abolition, half 
curious,
to them being on the
fully fledged abolition campaign
that ultimately closed
the jail, it felt like one of 
the most exciting things I have
ever happened to me, probably 
anyone in that organization
.  And so there was a lot of  
debate, a lot of
confusion initially, a lot of 
concern about safety
, and about whether this was 
freezable, was it
possible, and now that jail
is closed, because of political 
education, because of
experimentation, because people 
who were formerly incarcerated 
there
, and people who were committed 
to its destruction
did all of that to make sure it 
closed down.
So I hope it's 90y and  gritty 
enough -- knity and  gritty 
enough.
I think that's the nittiest -- 
there's no real drama, but 
hopefully that helps.
≫ GARRETT: go ahead, that was 
great.  Thank you so much, 
Derecka
≫ RUKIA: that was great.  Thank 
you.
It actually made me think
of the work that we're doing, 
because we really want to see 
Parchman Prison close down.
And with the Mississippi prison 
reform coalition, that's
our goal, and to attack all the 
other prisons
.  But I think the process that 
Derecka talked about is really 
important.
And when we look at the demand
for Parchman to chose, it comes 
from a similar process of folks 
inside and folks outside  
studying the history of  
Parchman.
And understanding its
existence as a place of torture 
and abuse for
Black people since its inception
.  So Parchman Prison is an
18,000-acre plantation
in Mississippi, similar to 
Angola 
Prison in Louisiana, which is 
also an  18,000-acre plantation
.  But Parchman, before
reconstruction, served as a 
plantation.
It served as a place, an 
institution of slavery
.  Immediately after 
reconstruction it was
turned into a work house and a 
prison.
And it has  existed as a prison 
ever since
.  The last time -- in studying 
Parchman
, really a lot of our study has 
come from guidance from
folks inside, looking
at the space that we used to -- 
we used
to have our meetings, our 
regular
meetings around public safety
inside of the
cofold building here in 
Mississippi, which is a building
that was erected to
honor the coalition of
civil rights groups that came 
together to really create some 
serious change in Mississippi.
So we used to meet in there, and
inside there
are Maurice murals that
-- these murals that honor the 
work that happened in the past, 
so
one of the first murals that you
see is this mural of Parchman 
Prison.
And it's a mural that shows an 
article that
indicates how young
folks, primarily were 
incarcerated in Parchman Prison
, and suffered a lot of the 
similar
abuses that folks are current 
currently experiencing right now
inside
of Parchman Prison, and other 
Mississippi prisons right now.
And they were incarcerated 
because of their protests.  In 
the 1960s and '70s.
And we're talking about abuses 
of not being allowed to shower.
Abuses of not being provided 
food.
Abuses of not having drinkable 
water
.  And not being given drinkable
water.
Abuses of sewage existing inside
of the cage, inside of their 
cell
.  Conditions of denial of 
medical treatment
.  Understaffing and unqualified
staff, right?
These are literally exactly the
same conditions of abuse that 
folks are current
thanly expressing inside of 
Parchman.  And are being 
retaliated against.
Similar to our brother Stevie 
who has been
retaliated against for speaking 
out right now.
And so I think
when talking about the intric
intricacies of study,  getting 
into the weeds of it is that
studying our experiences is also
very important.
And having those real 
conversations that Rachel talked
about is critical as well.
Because I think that exposes a 
lot sometimes.
Last story I'll share too is
the importance of allowing
study to also be centered
in people who are directly 
impacted by the harm we're 
trying to cure.
One of the things I lentor 
throughout my
time -- learned throughout my 
time in Mississippi is
oftentimes as advocates we think
we know the answer, because we 
know where we want to go.  
Right?
But what are the experiences, 
when we stop and just
listen, when we really just stop
and listen
to what people are saying they  
want, we actually
began to realize that how we get
to our north
star is not exactly the same way
as that -- as we envision.
Because our people may not be 
right where we are at that time.
So, for example, we always give 
this example when
talking about community-led 
governance, which I think is 
directly tied to abolition, 
right?
Because it's -- we can talk 
about that another time.
But when we -- when I think 
about this, this
is -- here in Jackson we talk 
about potholes.  Anybody comes 
to Jackson you know we got 
potholes.
And when my father
became
mayor, he
used the people's assembly 
format,
my father was the late mayor of 
Jackson, Mississippi
, revolutionary human rights 
attorney, amazing human
being, dedicated his life to all
of the work that we're all doing
right now.
He -- when creating his 
platform, actually
to run for mayor, he had a 
people's assembly.
And in the assembly folks were 
like, yeah,
yeah, yeah, man, you keep 
talking about
this liberation, this freedom, 
this self-determin 
self-determination.
But to be honest, I'm just 
concerned about my ability
to get to work, because every 
time I ride down the road I hit 
a pothole.
And when I hit that pothole, it 
breaks my rim.
And now I got to get my rim 
fixed and I got to get a new 
tire
And now I'm late for work.
And now -- some folks literally 
are now unemployed because they 
didn't get to work.
And so we began to realize that
we can't just move rapidly
past the  existing complexities 
that are causing
the problems in the first place 
that are preventing us from 
living our best lives, right?
And so when we're talking about 
study, we got to talk about
study deeply, about our own 
experiences, and
how we actually
also use those experiences to
chart the course for our journey
towards abolition and our 
freedom.
And so I hope that makes sense 
and was clear, and if not, ask 
me a follow-up question.  I'm 
sorry.
≫ GARRETT: no, that's great.  I 
love that story.
And I think that's really 
actually segues
us to the next clip from Stevie,
because one of the things that 
he talks about a lot is 
translation
, and in a letter to me recently
he wrote
something that I thought was 
really heartbreaking, because 
we've talked a lot
about translation, and he said 
to me, you know,
I don't actually like doing the 
work of translation inside.  
It's something I do out of 
necessity T.
he was talking about taking 
texts and breaking them down.
And he said, I do that because
the people inside are written 
about
, and they can't access the way 
that they're being written 
about.
And so he talks in this clip a 
little bit
about the importance of 
translation, of
accessibility of study, and the 
other thing he talks about
is this idea of abolition as 
practice
.  Not as a place that we're 
sort
of working to, but something 
that is ongoing and in process.
So we'll play that clip and then
you can sort of pick either
of those questions of 
translation and accessibility or
of abolitionist presence or 
practice.  This is clip number 
three, John.
≫ GARRETT: okay, great.
I'm just going to though a 
curveball and start with  
Derecka.
So Rachel doesn't always have to
respond immediately.
≫ DERECKA: can you give me the 
question?  I'm not even on the 
field.  What's the question?
≫ GARRETT: we just -- that's the
curveball.  No.
Either this question of what is 
abolitionist
practice look like, so for 
people who
maybe are new to abolition and 
think about it as this
utopian location that we're
working towards, how do we see 
abolition as something that
we do in our daily lives, or
this question about translation,
how do we make
study accessible and why does it
matter who we study with, not 
just what we study.
≫ DERECKA: wow.  Okay.  Okay.
Translation or as practice.
I'll try the translation part.  
I'll attempt it.
Because I try to think of myself
as a writer, and sometimes I
get things wrong and things are 
lost in translation a lot
.  One thing I really wish I had
not
written and the piece I wrote 
for the Atlantic called  "how I
became an abolitionist" was this
part where I
talk about when I first heard 
the word  "abolition,"
it felt expwiet ew taupic.
Ever since then I've been 
reading more about utopia,
socialist utopia, and I reread
" "Freedom Dream" and I wasn't 
trying
to be critical of utopia, we 
need
utopias, we need to think and 
dream and imagine new ways of 
being.
And I shouldn't have been as --
I wasn't intentionally being 
dismissive when I
wrote that, I was trying to 
speak
to a way that a lot of people 
also feel similarly
about abolition when they first 
hear it
, without understanding the 
importance of utopias.
The same way people dismiss 
anarchy right
now, oh, anarchy, without 
grappling with the politics of 
what it is.
So I just -- I don't want to 
give utopia
a bad rep, because we need it so
much to help and guide our work.
So I think that translation is 
important.
One thing that came up in Stevie
's comments that  is -- I am 
excited,
it's a debate within the 
abolitionist community.
I don't know which community it 
is, but it's a debate I'm 
hearing right
now, and I many thing out how to
think about it.  It's what 
abolition is and what abolition 
is not.
So there's this piece that came 
out sometime this
summer critiquing the idea of
abolitionist is the suburbs, and
to hear Stevie
say abolition is someone in the 
suburbs getting treatment and 
not going to jail.
And then thinking about the
new book that's critical of 
mandatory treatment for people 
who need help.
So there are all these 
conversations and disagreements
happening among absolutelies, 
people who study the politics.  
And I think that's really 
exciting.
Because so oven the conversation
is are you a
reformer, are you 
ababolitionist, are you super,
super woke TM or are you trying 
to undermine the system and 
support the Man?
I'm actually more excited about 
in terms of the translation
, are the strands of 
disagreement and
discourse and debate that's 
happening among the politics.  
Community policing is another 
one.
There are people who consider 
themselves to be
abolitionist who are -- not 
community policing
.  Community control of police, 
which is not community policing.
I saw Rukia's face.  No, no.  
Just in case, just in case, no. 
Not that.
There's a debate happening were 
whether be community control of 
police is abolitionist 
litionist.
I believe there was a paper that
actually
I still need to read saying no, 
it's not  abolitionist.
So these debates about the 
future that we're trying to
build, the future that exists 
right now, I think that's really
exciting.
One thing I say to the community
control of
police as abolitionists is there
are already communities in 
control of police.
There are lots of communities in
control of police right now.
And if you say, well, those are 
just white communities,
you can go to any of the 
countries in Latin America, you 
can
go to a lot of the countries in 
Africa, there are systems
of oppression that fall along 
racial lines.
So it's not as simple as we just
need people of
color to be in charge of police 
in order to establish the 
institution.
So I am excited about those that
things that have been happening.
I feel I'm not exactly answering
your question, but that's
what I'm excited to share 
listening to Stevie and thinking
about
what excites me about the 
conversation.
And I hope that people continue 
to disagree and to
push, because the other side of 
political education is
not that we're all agreeing, 
right, there was
a class I took this summer with 
the people's
forum and I took it with Dream  
Defenders, the
Afro social list and femme 
power, one thing the
instructor said is we are here 
to build conceptual alignment as
organizers.  That's what we're 
here to do.  They didn't mean 
agreement.  It didn't mean we 
all had to think the same thing.
It's that we need to build 
conceptual alignment
so as our movements build power,
we understand where we're
coming from and how to relate to
each other's organizations.
So part of that political 
education, especially
around abolition, but for so 
many other areas
of struggle and political 
ideology is the
need for conceptual alignment 
and not total agreement.
And I'm happy that people are 
taking principle disagreement 
stances and saying, no.  They're
laying claim to contest it.  So 
I'm excited about that.
≫ GARRETT: we're going to take 
-- I'm going to take a brief 
five seconds for the translation
team to catch up.
And now Rukia, I want to hear 
what you have to say about this.
≫ RUKIA: absolutely.
Also just look at our 
translation team, I want to make
sure they're
ready for us.  Yeah.
I mean, thank you, Derecka, 
because I just
-- I'm going to answer your 
question but I also want to
agree with Derecka around
you negotiation having police of
color
, having Black police, does not 
mean it's better policing.
Or having police that come from 
your community does not mean 
that
the system of policing is now 
better better.
We can look even at Jackson, 
Mississippi, we
are an 85% Black city,
with over 90% of the police 
force is Black
.  And we still
have police violence, right?
So the system of policing itself
is something that we're looking 
at.
It's not about if the faces are 
Black or white, or brown, or 
red.
It's about a system that is 
actually inherently infective 
and does not protect our 
communities.  So just thank you,
Derecka.
And similar to the whole 
conversation around
correctional officers and the 
system of prisons
.  Rachel mentioned earlier,
we need to stop giving them the 
power of calling them officers
, and I do want to know, Rachel,
what do you suggest we call 
them?
Because I do want to stop giving
them the leadership of calling 
them officers, and I do want to 
call them something else.
My mentor over here Denise 
Coleman, who
has spent 38 years in prison, 
who recently got out
two years ago, she calls them 
police
.  Sometimes I just get confused
if she's talking about the 
police outside or the police 
inside.  But she definitely 
calls them police.
And so I don't know if that -- 
maybe that's the term we should 
be using.
I'm really open to learning and 
using the right terminology, 
because I think that's 
important.
One of the things Stevie 
mentioned in
his talk was this
idea around giving examples of 
what abolition is.
And so like the example
of someone getting drug 
treatment instead of
going to a prison is a form of 
abolition
.  For me, I really appreciated 
that comment,
because I think that it's
both translation and practice to
some extent, and maybe I'm not 
answering the question right.
But for me, it -- because a lot 
of my
work is literally just 
organizing community around the
idea of something different
twhean we're currently 
experiencing and providing those
resources to help
them make that a reality, is 
being
able to
help folks understand
the words I'm using, so that we 
have similar definitions and 
vision.
And so as much as
it's true in the debate 
community around
abolition, which oftentimes is 
made up of a
lot of advocates who have been 
studying for a long time, the 
terminology
and definition of terminology 
and accessibility of
terminology is just as important
in terms of our day-to-day 
organizing with folks.
So I think the way Stevie 
approached define thing
abolition for me was really  
helpful, because
it gave me another way to 
explore
how do I express the work of 
abolition
.  Because it's true
, it is  creating something 
different
that is not based on punishment
.  And so I'm not
really answering the question 
and I'm kind of all in my 
thoughts about it as I'm 
talking.
But I just want to hold on to 
that, because I do think that 
was
an important comment
.  And Rachel will probably 
really answer the question for 
you
.  I'm throwing it to Rachel.
≫ RACHEL: empty promises is what
I would call that.
So I'll start by saying 
answering
your question, Rukia, which is 
not -- it's just what I say.
And I think there are lots and 
lots of ways of transforming our
language.
So we don't all have to use 
different
language, but the point for me 
is that
it's important that we're 
mindful of
whose language we're using and 
toward what end.
So I say  guards and
cops to make the distinction 
between people who
police cages and people who 
police people outside of cages.
And -- but I think police works 
in both of those situations too.
Some people like other kinds of 
things
.  That aren't even as genteel 
as guards and cops.
But the point there I think is
more about kind of what power, 
what deference
are we giving them, whose 
language are we using there.
I don't ever think calling 
anything correctional is 
appropriate.  So that's a good 
reason to strike that one out.
The same way that I don't think 
it's appropriate to call people 
offenders.
So again, it's like not to 
sensor
everybody, but to put, you know,
put a
bug in your ear around, can we
be more thoughtful about how 
we're communicating as part
of our political study, but also
as part of our political 
practice.
So maybe I'll talk more about 
practice.
I've found myself having a 
similar
reaction to Derecka in terms of 
Stevie's example
.  And I wish he were here, 
because I would love to
be more engaged with him and to 
hear more about that idea.
But I appreciate kind of where 
Rukia took that, because
I do think that that example
is -- it kind of takes us 
through translation into 
practice.
And I think now is an 
interesting period to be
thinking about those kinds of 
examples, like what do we
mean when we say turn toifs  
imprisonment, for instance.
Because we're also in a period 
where we're being pressed to 
think
about alternatives to the kinds 
of things that we use currently 
police for.
And we know that all
different things are not equal, 
and we know that they're not all
good.
So, for instance,
just putting somebody in
coercive treatment that's locked
down, it might be
treatment, but it's still -- if 
it's lockdown, it's still  
lockdown.
Even if it's not  lockdown, if 
it's coercive,
it doesn't do the work, the
abolitionist work that we hope
life-affirming projects and 
services will do.
Which is to help people make the
kinds
of transitions that they want to
make to
shift the kinds of conditions 
that lead people to
engage in behavior that some 
might
call antisocial or some might 
call criminal or the stuff 
Derecka was getting at earlier.
I would always rather see people
who are seeking treatment get 
treatment rather than life in a 
cage.
But I also want that treatment 
to not
be debasing or to not be 
physically
harmful to them, or to not -- I 
want it to be affirming and
I want it to be based on the 
kinds of goals that they set for
themselves and they set for 
their loved ones.
And I think that's really what 
abolition is about.
I think it's very popular these 
days to talk
about abolition as an 
affirmative
politics, and I agree that it 
is, I
never want to lose sight of the 
fact that my
ultimate goal is the elimination
of the prison industrial 
complex.
But at the same time, it is not 
only a negative politic.  I 
think it is an affirmative 
politic.
It's about how are we also 
creating the kinds of conditions
that we want?
That are important for us to 
have not
just life, but beautiful, 
healthy, fulfilling life.
That is impossible under the 
current conditions where we use 
the prison
industrial complex as a response
for everything, from a cat in a 
tree, to crisis of homelessness,
for instance.
So the practice of that to my 
mind is really
about that experimentation to 
come back to
experimentation, and for us to 
also
be gracious with -- enough
with each other to allow us time
and
space to experiment and maybe
even to fail at our experiment, 
but to
try again and not just say,  
well,
abolition is a failed project, 
because they couldn't
get it right a hundred percent 
the first time.
And that practice I think is
showing up and saying, this is 
what we actually
want this, is what we think we 
need to be able
to live well with each other and
in right
relation to the natural world
.  And we need time and space 
and knowledge to test that out.
And so in the treatment example,
what does life-
life-affirming self-determineed
treatment that builds people's 
capacity to live
well in relationship to other 
people in the natural world look
like?
Or what does
-- I don't know, traffic 
direction that's
not led by an armed agent of the
state look like?
So I think there are lots of 
different ways that we can 
practice that.
If I can say one more thing, I'm
sorry to go on, but one
other thing just  popped into my
brain that I think is another 
one of my little hobby horses.
I also think that the -- how to 
say it?
That our abolitionist politics
need to be aimed at changing all
of our conditions.
So I'm not particularly 
interested in
kind of like everyday abolition,
like I didn't
punish my kids, so I'm an 
abolitionist
because of this thing that I 
just said earlier.
Which is about the ultimate goal
of
eliminating the prison 
industrial complex.
So if your
act of not punishing your kids 
is attached
to some bigger practice you're 
trying to build with
parents, kind of across your 
family, or across your 
neighborhood,
or whatever that might be, to 
shift how your
kids understand the nature of 
punishment, that's a
very different thing than I just
did this
one thing in my house hold, so 
now I'm good to go, call me an 
abolitionist.
Or I made a victory garden in my
back yard, and now we have a lot
of pickles or something.
There's lots of different kinds 
of things that people
are attributing  abolitionist 
politics to,
and I'm not trying
to sensor what people do or 
police what people do.
But my question about that is, 
what are we building?
What is the practice that we are
developing such that we are 
absolutely able
to eliminate the use of
surveillance policing,  
imprisonment, sentencing, and 
execution?
And what do we need to do, what 
kind of skills to
do we need to build over time, 
what relationships, what
infrastructure do we need, and 
to my mind all
of the things together are the 
practice of doing abolitionist 
politics.
≫ GARRETT: thank you so much for
that, Rachel.  I think that was 
great.
I'm going to -- we're getting a 
little tight on time and I want 
to make sure we have time for Q 
and A.
I'm going to move to a
piece that Stevie recorded in 
June, in response to the 
uprisings.
And Rachel you wrote a powerful 
piece
this summer, political education
in a time of
rebellion I thought was really 
timely
and you wrote political 
education isn't just education
about politics, it's education 
for the specific purpose of 
making our politics more 
powerful.  It is front line 
work.
And I thought that was a really 
wonderful
encapsulation of the 
relationship between study and 
struggle in that moment.
So we're going to play clip 
number five,
which is this recording of 
Stevie talking about I
think the promise of this 
historical moment of
uprisings, as well as some 
fears, and he'll touch a little
bit upon what you just did about
everyone is an
abolitionist now, and then we'll
let you all have closing 
statements.
≫ GARRETT: I think we'll go to 
each of you just
for some final words before we 
get -- we have about four 
questions in the Q and A.
But really just on this question
of how you
assess this current moment where
we are, the importance of study
in that moment, and
, yeah, I think we'll go back to
our
original --
≫ 30 seconds.
≫ GARRETT: So we'll end with 
some time for closing comments
from each of you about sort of
to Stevie's point, where do you 
see us in this
current moment in terms of both 
promise and possible pitfalls 
and
the importance of study in this 
current moment of uprisings.  
And then we'll move to our Q and
A.  We'll start with you,  
Rachel.
≫ RACHEL: All right.
I'm in a really hopeful place
right now in terms of the
movement for the abolition of 
the prison industrial complex.
I think there's a lot out
there right now around which we 
should be
pessimistic, and that's really 
hard, and that people are 
struggling with.
But I think the openings that we
have
right now to be able
to try some different things 
out, which is
all I mean when I'm talking 
about experiments, is the
ability to try something new out
that we haven't been given time 
to do before.
And that there's more of an 
appetite for us to
do this trying out than there 
may have been previously.
And that might just be my
old tired behind, you know, 
thinking
about the 1990s and what things 
were like then, or whatever.  
But I do think there are some  
openings.
I'm not
naive, I think, about where we 
are and how much we're up 
against.
But I do think that we need to 
take as much
advantage of the windows that we
have right now and try a bunch 
of stuff out.
Try as much stuff out as 
possible
.  I take Stevie's point around 
who
we pay attention to, and I think
that that's
actually one of the primary 
roles
of study of rigorous study, is 
also to
understand who do we trust?
Whose kind of ideas and theories
and
analysis and experience do we 
trust?
And I happen to trust
Miriam Cabba, I don't know
who that other guy is Stevie was
referencing.
I also don't want us to get too 
caught up on -- and
I'm not suggesting Stevie was 
saying this, but I don't want us
to get too caught up
on having to be right or having
to -- only have a handful of
people be the trusted  
messengers.
I think there's room if we are 
going to build the
kind of
mass that we need to build to 
actually have some  power, 
there's room for more of us to 
get in the boat.
And I guess I would just ask you
if you're interested in getting 
in
the boat, please come correct, 
please do
the work to understand what the 
politics are.
Please do the work to get out of
your comfort zone.
So if community oversight is
your jam, and people are 
repeatedly telling you they 
don't think
that we can eliminate police 
with community oversight, can 
you think beyond that?  If you 
really have this goal?
But I do think that there's room
for many more of  us,
and I want our movement to be as
vibrant and as exciting and as 
welcoming as it can be.
I steal from Tony all the time, 
but
I'm going to say it again 
because I think it's  important 
-- we need to make our politics 
I resistible.
And that is not meant to be a 
slogan or catch phrase or 
something.  That's meant to be 
our practice.
How do we make this the place 
people want to be?  That's where
I think we're at right now.  And
where we need to be.
≫ GARRETT: Derecka, do you want 
to follow that?
I shouldn't have posed it that 
way.   Derecka, would you follow
that?
≫ DERECKA: I will try.  I will 
try.
When Stevie was talking about
meeting kids who were claiming 
to be abolition
abolitionists, and abolitionist 
-- it actually made
me think of Christianity
and the type of people I mean 
who call
themselves Christians or the 
type of churches who I hear call
themselves
Christians is always interesting
because it's like, that's not
really what -- I don't think 
real Christians,
but I don't take a lot of their 
word, the fruits of their labor 
to be Christlike.
I wish people had a similar 
orientation around abolition, 
because that would be a lot 
easier.
But as someone who is living 
among those spaces
, it remind me so much of it, so
I feel like
I'm used to having to contest 
the
term and the politics, because 
of all the practice I've had to 
do identifying as a Christian.
But what's exciting about 
contesting those terms is
that for lots of people I'm the 
only person who is a Christian
abolitionist who is anticap list
that they know.
So when they have someone come 
up in the church who is
talking about, we need more 
Black police officers, I can say
no, no, Jesus is anti-police.
So it gives us new terrain
to weigh these conversations 
and.
And I hope as more people become
abolitionist
, people who grapple and say the
politics continue to push back 
and to contest the term.
I can't -- what book was I 
reading, I can't remember the 
name
of the book right now, but it 
was
-- maybe how capitalism 
underdevelops America.
He had this program, not a 
10-point program
, but he has a list of thoughts 
at the end of this book and
one of the thoughts says, we 
don't need to make a bunch of 
people socialists.
We need to make a lot of people 
excited  or -- we need to make 
socialism popular.
And so I hear part of what 
Rachel was saying about 
abolition.
I don't know if our project
is to evangelize the masses and 
have a bunch of
abolitionist converts, but maybe
it could be to
popularize and make the politics
I resistible.
That's something that's maybe 
easier than getting to 
one-on-one arguments
with people about whether they 
are specifically abolitionists. 
I think that can be important.
I think what's more exciting is 
that
54% of Americans surveyed said
that the police precinct in
Minnesota was rightfully burned 
down after George Floyd's death.
Do I think those 54% of people 
are abolitionists?  No.  Do I 
think those people believe we 
should defund the police?  No.
But I do -- do I think them 
being excited about
a police precinct burning down 
means something for abolition?  
Absolutely.
So how do we take these societal
moments where
abolition is popular and push 
the politics further to the 
left, rather than just being so 
concerned about in
one-on-one conversations whether
someone is an abolitionist or a 
Christian or a socialist?
If that person is doing harmful 
things, they have
to be caught in or called out, 
whatever movement people are 
using these
days, because I can't keep up 
how we're calling it.  I think 
that's important.  So I think 
the conversation is important.
But I'm much more excited about 
the politics becoming popular 
rather than just the 
individuals.
≫ GARRETT: I couldn't unmute 
myself.
I was trying to say, Rukia, 
you're up.
≫ RUKIA: Thank you.
You know, I think Rachel and 
Derecka  really laid
out the foundation for what I'm 
going to say
, that I think when we continue 
to
talk about study and struggle
, and abolition, that
one thing that stuck with me 
that Stevie said is that we keep
us safe.
And it's this concept and this 
understanding, this deep
understanding that I think most 
folks
have, I could be wrong, but I 
believe most folks have, at
least most folks I've talked to,
even
if they believe in police, they 
also believe that we keep us 
safe.
And I think that that is true 
even inside of the carceral 
system.
It's not the guards inside
that protect folks
.  It's other folks who are 
incarcerated that protect each 
other.
And when we're out here in the 
community, we keep us safe.
We create
the systems of accountability 
that we need to see and
to prevent harm from happening 
in the first place
.  As we continue to engage and
study, I want us to study how we
have kept us safe in the past, 
and
to really engage in those deep 
conversations that Rachel talked
about earlier that is a part of 
our
political education and our 
study to figure out how
we begin to create new
ideas in new ways to experiment
what safety looks like when 
we're in control of it as 
community.
So that's what I'll leave us on,
is this idea that we keep us 
safe.
≫ GARRETT: Thank you, Rukia.
So we have a lot of questions, 
not a lot of time.
My strategy here is I'm going to
read a couple
of these that I feel like touch 
on new areas, and
then just let you in the same 
format choose which one you want
to respond to.
Have any of you studied 
something that was so 
overwhelming that you felt 
incapable of action?
And how did you overcome that 
experience experience?
Another one is, how do you 
respond to people who
don't see livered experience as 
a credible form of knowledge or 
value?
And the last one is, a bit 
longer.
The disability community often 
expresses fear
over being left behind by 
abolitionists,
of desire for independent 
living, not being centered as it
should be rather than, quote, 
being taken care  of.
As a disabled person than 
myself, I struggle to articulate
the difference between community
care and being taken care of to 
other disabled folks.
So do any of the speakers have 
ideas for language and phrasing 
that would help with that?
Rachel, you can feel free to 
take any of those.
≫ RACHEL: All right.  Those are 
really interesting questions.  
All of them.
I think I will start with 
overwhelm.
Which is to say, yes, the answer
to that question is yes.
I have studied things that have 
felt overwhelming to me.
And -- some of the things that I
think are the
most important to my political
development I've  seen -- have 
seen overwhelming to me.
Understanding history of race 
and racism
.  I did formal study on
that that got me so overwhelmed 
there was some days I couldn't 
get out of bed.
I think learning about
capitalism is overwhelming.
And I think understanding each 
of those
things and their relationship to
each other, but I'll take them
separately, is
essential to the politics that I
have
, but also to me being able to 
live the kind of life that I 
want to  live.
So if I'm committed to living in
a way that is not completely
under the boot of some
white oppressor, then I need to 
understand those things.
And that's I think the same
with learning about, and this
isn't book study, but this is 
kind of the day-to-day 
conversation
that we've been talking about as
a totally legitimate
way to learn, learning about the
conditions that
people are living under in 
prisons across
the United  States, and being in
communication with imprisoned 
people in
many states as I was for years 
and years
.  That is totally overwhelming 
and makes you not want to act.
And I think kind of political 
commitment
is what keeps me going.
And I think to Derecka's point, 
we develop that political 
commitment
, right, most of us don't have 
the luxury
, luxury of -- the good fortune,
maybe
I'll say, of growing up
in the  Lumumba family, out the
womb, into radicalism, most of 
us need to develop that.
And I think having that
kind of -- I'm not
going to say north star, because
I feel that's getting
overused and I want to save that
for good stuff, but
having that kind of pull, that 
kind of really
deep pull to want to
transform our conditions, helps
me stay  committed and also I
think helps me understand that I
need to do the work that helps 
me stay committed.
And what that means in my case, 
people learn
differently, so I'm not sure 
what works for everyone, but
in my case, what that means is 
breaking things into chunks.
That means not trying to 
understand the
entire history of capitalism, 
overnight or through one class.
Or I'm just going to sit down 
and read capital by myself.  For
instance.  Which I hear lots of 
people do.
I want to understand capitalism,
so I'm going to read capital.
But understanding I think chunk 
by
chunk and to give yourself some 
patience with
that too, I think, to 
understand, okay, these
are building blocks, I'm going 
to have to figure out how to put
them
together in a way that helps me 
understand
the bigger thing, gives you
something to move through and 
gives you something to grow 
into.
The same with racism as I was 
talking about before.
So I don't need to read every
single terrible thing that was 
ever done to Black
people, even though that's kind 
of
the formal academic practice, 
read all
of this literature and then be 
able to comment
on all of this literature, and 
in that case
the -- all this literature was
history of sociology and
anthropology, which has been 
remarkably bad to Black
people, devastating to bhak 
people.
So it's maybe not read all of 
those things, but it's
to say, okay, let me figure out,
and
this might be in conversation 
with somebody who I respect
and  trust, let me figure out 
what's
a chunk, what's a good starter 
chunk that helps me build from 
there?
I think it's the same way in 
some ways that we've think
about having -- doing 
abolitionist organizing.
If we can't get rid of every 
single prison,
or every single cop today, which
again I'm
never against if we can do that,
let's do that today.
But if we can't, then what is a
meaningful chunk that moves us 
further toward
the horizon of what we want and 
doesn't mean
that we got to go back and then 
relearn or retear down or 
whatever the going back would 
be?
What gets us one step further 
toward our goal.
And I think that's one way to 
approach study when it's kind of
overwhelming.
That was a  long-winded so I'll 
only respond to that one.
≫ GARRETT: Thank you, Rachel.
We're going to let 
interpretation take a brief
pause and then finish what 
Derecka -- with Derecka and 
Rukia.
≫ DERECKA: Are we good to go?
≫ GARRETT: Yeah.  We're good.
≫ DERECKA: Okay.
Initially it was abolition as
my so overwhelming, what about 
the murderers, all of that.
That was one of my
initial things that I felt, it
was just too  impossible, too 
large, too unrealistic, all of 
the things I've written about.
Since then there's been so many 
new
-- I'm always trying to figure 
out how to do
what Rachel said and to break 
things down and to learn them 
with other people and in chunks.
The most recent one has been 
climate change.
When people talk about abolition
and other
people freeze up because it 
feels overwhelming, I
get a deep sense of anxiety when
I
hear climate change, ghoarm, 
climate crisis
.  It wasn't until I read the
uninhabitable earth that I could
actually have some sort
of grasp of the concepts, some
sort of grasp on what does one 
degree of
warming mean versus two degrees,
versus  three, and four, and if 
it gets to four, how terrible it
is.
So the book is very, very sad, 
but
I think it's an explainer, it
helped me to understand the 
nature of the problem.
And, yeah, what source of 
information we can take to stop 
it.
Reading, asking questions,  
learning
in very, very tiny  bite-sized 
chunks.
Because everything you're taught
about, at least everything I was
taught
about climate change and 
environmentalism has all just
been dismantled, you learn the 
plastics industry
is behind recycling, you're just
like, what happened to reduce, 
reuse, recycle?  This -- isn't 
this what we're supposed to do?
And you learn, this is actually 
a way for them to justify to 
continue making plastic.  None 
of it is ever stop producing 
plastic.
Then you have to rethink that 
you thought that you were 
progressive on
recycling, you've been saying 
your cereal boxes when actually
you have to do away -- way more 
than that if you're going to try
to save the planet.
So climate change has been 
something I've been really 
trying
to study and develop an analysis
around, because
it's -- the planet is going to 
be
abolished if we don't figure out
how to save it soon enough.
The question around
disability also is now one of 
the conversations
I've been trying to definitely 
learn a lot more, and that 
started in law school.
So in the movement for Black 
lives initially released
their policy platform, the 
journal that
was -- I was editor of, we did a
call for papers
.  To see how people were using 
the policy
platform in their organizing, 
their  teaching.
And in our call for papers we 
received a lot
of responses that were critiques
of the BLM platform through a 
disability analysis.
So we -- I was so excited to be 
able to
publish those critiques, because
the first time that I
read any sort of critique
from BRM in a way that was
pushing them to be more 
inclusive, instead of a lot of 
the ridiculous critiques.
Since then they've gone through
iterations of updating the 
platform to include that 
analysis, both
the -- the first time I was 
reading about autism and
disability, and Deaf, and hard 
of hearing in relation
to police violence and prison 
violence, and -- it
was quite remarkable how
that journal has definitely 
helped to shape my politics 
around disability.
But it's something I know I 
still have to learn about around
.  So the question,
the theory, the abolition is
movement leaving people who have
a disability justice
practice framework behind, one 
thing I try to think about, who
are the people who are 
disability justice advocates who
are in abolitionist spaces?
because they're not left behind,
they're there.
They're there, the people
who are currently signing this 
event, who do you look to, who 
do you read and turn to?
So I was -- a shameless plug for
that journal,
it came out in 2017, you can 
read some of the critiques  
there.
And you can go read the updated 
policy platform to
see how it's been incorporated 
and hopefully there will be much
more of that.  What was the last
question?
There was the overwhelm, the 
disability justice, and what was
the third question?
≫ GARRETT: how do you respond to
people who don't see lived 
experience as a credible form of
knowledge for value?
≫ DERECKA: how do I respond -- 
it depends on the people.  
Honestly, depends on the person.
How do I say this?
I am finding that
there's not a one-size-fits-all 
to lots of these conversations.
So there are some people, for 
example, who
only care about directly 
impacting
people and their lived 
experiences if it serves their 
goals of moderate reforms.
They only want you to hear about
people who are directly impacted
to say, we want community 
policing.
Or we're going to build several 
jails instead of to close them.
Then you have people who care 
about people's lived
experiences, and forming the
policy or the law, or the panel,
or
the book, but it's usually as an
attempt to
undermine radical progressive or
abolitionist aims
.  I have much more to say to 
those people than
I do to people who don't value 
people's lived experiences.
I think maybe I've been lucky in
the last few years
where I've seen a political 
shift
to absolutely try to center  
people's lived experiences
.   Now, I'm not in the funding 
spaces, and I
will be surprised if the money 
also follows the people with 
lived experiences.
And when it does, I could almost
guess that it
, again, goes with people who 
have -- it's not to the Stevie 
Wilsons of the world.
It's not to -- there's no 
directly
impacted conversation around 
Jamal, there's no
-- so it depends on whose lived
experiences get centered and the
twhawns are most
vocal right now the are the 
people who have opportunities 
right now to push the 
conversation.
And so I, maybe we'll let Rukia 
answer that,
because I'm still formulating a 
lot of thoughts about it.
≫ GARRETT: Rukia, we'll let you,
we're over time so I want to 
thank our
audience for sticking with us 
and we'll let Rukia have the 
last word.
≫ RUKIA: I'll try to be quick, 
I'm sorry.  I don't have an 
answer to that question.
Because to be quite honest, I 
still am working
on dealing with my frustration 
around people
who do not really believe in or 
sensor can people with lived 
experience.
So I don't think I can have an 
unbiased or a fair response to 
that right now.
Most of the folks I work with 
have
experience, the trauma, the 
horrific
treatment and
serious -- including myself in 
many ways, outside of
the carceral system, but just 
state violence.
So I just don't have a really 
positive response to that right 
now.
And so I'm going to hold off on 
answering that question.
I do -- I recognize I'm going to
grow in that moment.  I can grow
around how to answer that.
I will say that
in terms of -- I do want to
real quickly, I'm sorry, so much
I want to respond to when
we realized time was out, I 
shift my mind-set a little bit.
One of the things I do wanted to
lift up, I do want to
lift up the Harriet Tubman 
project,
Hurd, all of those offeringses 
that have really pushed the 
movement
for Black lives, for us to 
really push a disability
justice framework, and also for 
all of those folks who have 
really pushed us to also
recognize our trans experience
s and value and need to ensure 
that we are also centering trans
lives as well.
And so I just want to really 
make sure that I state that.
Because it's not -- the movement
for Black lives were made up of 
over 150 organizations.
So every time we're learning, 
that means you have 150
other organizations and entity 
and people that are also 
learning.  And experiencing.  
And shifting our politics  
locally.
To ensure that we are including 
conversation
around those very, very 
important siblings of our 
communities.  So that's really 
important.  I  wanted to mention
that.
To the first question
around -- I don't remember what 
the first question is anymore.  
I got thrown off.
≫ GARRETT: you're okay.
If you want to end ewith this 
one, it's
-- whenever you  studied 
something you were over welled 
by
and how did you overcome --
≫ RUKIA: yes.  Honestly, 
studying the law.
In law  school, studying the law
was overwhelming for me because 
I
was so disappoint
ed in U.S. law and policy.
Like, the entire system is 
ridiculous
.  And how we interpret it, the
process of interpretation, like,
when I say
I truly felt that I was
entering a space of no
opportunity to actually find
justice and humanity for anyone,
I was just blown away.  I was 
shocked.
I thought that at least by going
to law school I would
somehow open the door to some, 
like
, amazing information that was 
being used inappropriately.  The
whole system is messed up.  The 
whole philosophy.  I just was 
shocked by that.  And so that 
was overwhelming for me.
What gave me hope was actually 
the things I read outside of law
school.
It was the  conversations I had 
outside of law school
.  It was this movement around 
abolition
as a practice that actually gave
me hope.
In studying other forms of 
government and other systems
of justice that actually gave me
hope.
And so yeah, that's what was 
overwhelming for me.  And that's
how I overcame it.  Is our 
people.  I'll end there.  Thank 
you all so much.  I also want to
thank T.L.
Lewis who has really -- is a 
disability justice
advocate and Melissa Thompson 
who are
two advocates who have really 
helped me and guided me in my 
own development around those 
issues.
I just want to shout them out 
too.
≫ GARRETT: thank you to the 
whole team, and everyone on this
call, the audience, you can't 
see all the stuff
behind the scenes, there's like 
12 people on this call, and I
appreciate every single one of 
them, especially Rachel, Rukia
, Derecka, thank you so much 
for, I always feel like
an interloper getting to spend a
couple hours with all of you
.  So thank you so much for 
making time and for everyone 
tuning in.
≫ DERECKA: thank you.
≫ RACHEL: thanks, everybody.
