The Civil Rights Movement and the Rise of Police Militarization

Protestors and the Militarization of Police

"If one really wishes to know how justice is administered in a country, one goes to the unprotected and listens to their testimony." This was spoken by Civil Rights activist and writer James Baldwin. The gravity of this statement continues to shed light on the policing of Black and brown people in America.

In addition to changing the social and legal landscape of the United States, the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 1960s was a major factor in the growing militarization of police enforcement. The movement, which aimed to eradicate institutional racism and promote equality and justice, encountered strong opposition, especially from state and municipal law enforcement. The way that law enforcement handled nonviolent demonstrations and civil disobedience set the stage for a change in policing strategies that eventually changed the function of police in American culture.

One of the most defining aspects of the Civil Rights Movement was its strategy of nonviolent protest. Activists, inspired by leaders such as Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., employed sit-ins, marches, and boycotts to demand equal rights. However, their peaceful demonstrations were often met with brutal police repression. The images of officers using fire hoses, attack dogs, and batons against unarmed protesters, particularly in places like Birmingham and Selma, shocked the nation and the world. This extreme stance marked a changing law enforcement ideology whereby civil disturbance was seen as a threat needing military-style suppression.

The federal government played a significant role in reinforcing this shift. As civil rights protests intensified, particularly in response to racial injustice and police brutality, the U.S. government funneled resources into local police forces to better equip them to handle so-called "riots." The Law Enforcement Assistance Administration (LEAA), established in 1968, provided grants that encouraged police departments to adopt military-grade weapons and riot control tactics. Like most of America's historical evils, this support was justified as necessary for maintaining public order. But in the end, it disproportionately targeted Black communities and protest movements.

The uprisings and urban rebellions of the late 1960s, including those in Detroit, Newark, and Watts, further fueled the demand for a militarized police presence. The boundaries between civilian law enforcement and military participation were further blurred when numerous municipal administrations used National Guard troops. Law enforcement in the United States began to see Black and brown communities, especially African Americans, as enemies rather than fellow citizens when they began to use tanks, armored vehicles, and assault rifles in urban areas. This marked a notable shift away from conventional community policing.

The long-term effects of this shift are evident in today's policing. The militarization trend continued through the War on Drugs in the 1980s and escalated after the 9/11 attacks with the advent of the 1033 Program, which allowed surplus military equipment to be distributed to police departments. Most recent events, such as the forceful policing of Black Lives Matter demonstrations and the deployment of military-grade force against protestors, bear the marks of the Civil Rights Movement's suppression.

The Civil Rights Movement unintentionally set off a government reaction that strengthened the very policies protestors battled against, while trying to eradicate institutional racism and police violence. Knowing this history is essential since we still debate how police should fit in society and the continuous fight for racial justice. Addressing police militarization requires a recognition of the historical injustices that shaped modern law enforcement. When one understands the true history of policing in this country, it is easy to acknowledge that militarizing policy only mirrors the unjust role police play in real progress.