On Wednesday, March 2nd, a panel of speakers on behalf of the Wesleyan Center for Prison Education came to Connecticut College as part of the “One Book One Region Series.” Their presentation entitled, “Why College in Prison?” included panel members Kristen Inglis, Lori Gruen, and Christopher Hammond.
The Facts
First to speak on the panel was Inglis, who introduced the politics behind incarceration. With approximately 2.2 million Americans currently residing in jail or prison, the U.S. is the world’s leader in incarceration, with absolutely no comparison to any other country. Inglis explained that, despite the higher violent-crime rate in the U.S., the disproportionate rates of incarceration are actually related to laws surrounding non-violent, drug related crimes. Specifically, the disproportion was was sparked by the introduction of statewide, mandatory minimum sentences for drug-related crimes.
The Issue of Recidivism
Over 700,000 people are released from federal and state prisons each year. However, within three years of release, 40% of these individuals will return to prison. Inglis explained that, despite common misconceptions, recidivism is not typically due to a repeat of the original offense—most cases are due to parole violations, such as lacking the funds to pay a fine. Incarceration (and thus, recidivism) is incredibly expensive; according to Inglis, in 2010, the aggregate cost of prisons was estimated to be over $39 billion. In order to conceptualize this large figure, consider this: the cost for taxpayers to keep an individual incarcerated can easily exceed the cost of attending an Ivy League school.
Education is the Answer
The lack of education in prison is so obviously problematic that it is arguably the only issue that is currently agreed upon by all lawmakers. According to a 2013 study by Rand, education in prison is the most effective method for reducing recidivism. For every one-dollar spent on education, five dollars is saved in corrections costs. Furthermore, education provides those incarcerated with the skills to continue their lives outside of prison, find employment, become tax-paying citizens, or even continue education elsewhere. Those better equipped with education will reduce the likelihood of returning to prison. This will save taxpayers money, benefiting society as a whole.
The “Tough on Crime” bill that was passed during Clinton’s administration made prisoners ineligible for Pell Grants, which provide federal funds for college education. However, Obama’s 2015 initiative, “Second Chance Pell,” was instituted to experiment with the return of access for prisoners, allowing colleges to organize programs in prisons. There will ultimately be a few selected sites, but over 200 colleges across the country have expressed their interest in participation.
Why the Liberal Arts?
Next to speak on the panel was Gruen, a professor of philosophy who teaches for both Wesleyan University, as well as Wesleyan Center for Prison Education. More money is spent to keep people in prison than to educate them. According to the 2013 Rand study discussed by Inglis, all types of education are beneficial for reducing recidivism rates. However, the Wesleyan Center for Prison Education advocates for the particular benefits of the liberal arts as opposed to vocational training.
Overall, Gruen argued (quite convincingly) that a liberal arts education for her incarcerated students serves as a catalyst for positive change. The overarching concern for the value of education itself is what can foster the most growth within students. Her history of political philosophy class may not offer the immediate skills learned through vocational training but the skills that are developed over time are extremely valuable. She observes the transformation of her students through shifts in attitude, improved self-concepts/value to the community, heightened senses of patience and understanding, and more self-recognition of developed opinions. The class material also generates self-reflection among her students. One example is her students’ increased awareness for responses to violence. Some students expressed that, prior to their education, they had truly never considered using words as a response to violence, for aggression was always the answer.
Gruen concluded by discussing the chain reaction of education. Those who are educated have the platform to encourage family, friends, children, etc. to achieve the same. High school dropouts ages 16 to 24 are 63 times more likely to be incarcerated than those with a bachelors degree. Thus, the importance of contagious education is essential in solving the issue of incarceration.
An Anecdotal Perspective
Last to speak on the panel was Christopher Hammond, the chair of the Mathematics department at Conn Coll. Hammond also teaches at the York correctional facility in Niantic for the Wesleyan Center for Prison Education. He discussed the work ethic of his students, describing them as the most “obviously grateful” students he has ever taught. Despite their difference in background from say, the typical student at Connecticut College, he described his students at York as “diligent, dedicated, and eager to learn.” He also described the way in which teaching this population has helped him, in that this “transformative” experience has helped him “refocus his expectation for students.” Lastly, Hammond noted that it is easy for society to view these institutions as blank spots on a map, but truthfully, they are right in our backyards.