Hazing Arizona (PDF)

GO DIRECTLY TO JAIL

Long before the state passed its anti-immigrant law, Sheriff Joe Arpaio was taking border enforcement into his own hands.

David de la Fuente might still be alive if his pal David Salazar hadn't been short on cash one day. Both men lived in Phoenix, where they'd settled after making their separate ways north from the Mexican farming village of Colonia Emilio Carranza many years earlier. Salazar and his family came across legally in 1974, while de la Fuente arrived during the 1990s, traversing the desert on foot to cross the border illegally near Nogales, Arizona. De la Fuente, a plumber, and Salazar, a delivery driver, eventually became good friends. Their families grew close, too, often spending weekends and holidays together.

But that all changed one morning in May 2009, when Salazar asked de la Fuente for a ride to the atm. They hopped into de la Fuente's green Nissan Maxima and drove to a nearby Wells Fargo. As they were about to turn into the parking lot, a Phoenix squad car driving behind them hit its flashers.

By Salazar's account, officer Matthew Prutch asked de la Fuente for a driver's license. When he produced a fake, Prutch had him step out of the car and handcuffed him. Salazar asked the officer whether he'd pulled them over because of their skin color; Prutch, he says, replied that he was just doing his job. (In his report, Prutch wrote that he ran the Nissan's plates while following the car and found no driver's license data associated with the registered owner. "He appeared to be a Hispanic male," Prutch added, "and under reasonable suspicion I believe [sic] the driver to be driving with no valid license.") Minutes later, another officer arrived and asked Salazar for his license, even though he hadn't been at the wheel. Prutch then delivered de la Fuente to the police station for booking. From there, the 35-year-old was taken to Maricopa County Sherriff Joe Arpaio's notorious Durango Jail, and charged with using a fake ID. A month later, he was dead.

Before SB 1070, the Arizona law that allows police officers to detain anyone they suspect might be in the country without papers, there was 287(g). That's a 1996 amendment to the Immigration and Nationality Act under which the feds can deputize state and local law enforcement to capture and detain undocumented immigrants. Some 71 agencies in 26 states operate under 287(g) agreements- Arpaio signed up in 2007.

The man who calls himself "America's toughest sheriff" has long had a knack for drawing media attention-reviving chain gangs, for instance, and humiliating county inmates by forcing them to don pink underwear. He grew obsessed with illegal immigration in 2005, when the state's "coyote statute" took effect, making it a felony to smuggle people for profit anywhere in Arizona. As interpreted by then-county prosecutor Andrew Thomas, the law freed sheriff's deputies to round up undocumented immigrants-after all, hadn't these people conspired to smuggle themselves into Arizona? So Arpaio began sending out posses of citizens and lawmen to conduct immigration sweeps. "I'm not going to turn these people over to federal authorities so they can have a free ride back to Mexico," he told the Washington Times. "I'll give them a free ride to my jail."

It was Arpaio's zeal that compelled me to spend five months on his home turf last year. I wanted to see firsthand how his tactics affected the Latino residents who make up 3 1 percent of the county's population. I heard story after storyfrom citizens, legal immigrants, and undocumented residents alike-about encounters with deputies and cops determined to play Border Patrol. It got to the point where I raced home in a panic one morning after heading out for a jog without ID-what if a deputy, seeing a Latina running down the street, decided to haul me in?

Native Americans told me they were targeted because deputies mistook them for Latinos. Latinos told me of being stopped randomly on the street and shouted at-or worse-by officers demanding identification. Alex, a third-generation US citizen, was at a Circle K buying water while his parents waited outside. He ran out when he heard a group of Arpaio's deputies yelling at them to produce their papers. Then, Alex said, they demanded to see his ID, too, explaining, "The law says everyone here has to be legal." (Fearing retaliation, Alex asked that we not use his real name.)

Then there was Celia Alejandra Alvarez, who told me deputies broke her jaw during a raid at the landscaping company she worked for. Alvarez said she was denied adequate medical care during her three-month detention-a common complaint that has been the subject of hundreds of lawsuits against Arpaio. Even after surgery, she added, her jaw still isn't back to normal-during our interview she paused periodically to readjust it. (In 2008, the National Commission on Correctional Health Care yanked Maricopa County's accreditation, saying its jails failed to meet national standards.)

Maurilio (who also feared giving his real name) is a construction worker who has lived in the United States without papers for 21 years, raising two kids who are US citizens. He said his family was camping at a lake over the Fourth of July weekend in 2008, when a fellow camper started yelling something about "too many Mexicans" and called the sheriffs office. The deputies, Maurilio and his wife told me, threw him down in the presence of his six-year-old son and shoved his face into the ground. They then yanked his head up by his hair and pepper-sprayed him as they cuffed him. After a few weeks at Durango, he was deported-and immediately headed to the desert to walk back north.

To most anyone who even looks Latino in Maricopa County, the long arm of the sheriff seems inescapable. Indeed, Arpaio's tactics have put his agency at the center of an ongoing civil rights investigation by the Department of Justice. Last fall, without explanation, the Department of Homeland Security rescinded Arpaio's authority to arrest people under section 287(g)-although deputies can still check the immigration status of people arriving at the jails. In anticipation of the crackdown, Arpaio held a press conference. "We have arrested 1,600 illegals that have not committed any crime other than being here illegally," he boasted. "The secret is, we're still going to do the same thing-we have the state laws, and by the way, we'll still enforce the federal laws without the oversight, the policy, the restrictions that they put on us."

When David de la Fuente arrived at Durango, his friends and family say, deputies immediately began grilling him about his immigration status. One of his sisters visited twice, as did Salazar. Each told me that de la Fuente was deteriorating quickly. The guards, he told them, kept dragging him back and forth between the prison yard (where temperatures reached 107 degrees) and the frigid jail-leaving him queasy and disoriented. He also complained of severe chest pains, but fearing the guards might retaliate, told his family not to press the authorities about his condition. Eventually, de la Fuente was hauled before a judge, who fined him and put him on probation for giving an alias to the police. After three weeks in custody, he was turned over to federal immigration authorities, who delivered him the next day to Nogales, Mexico, about 700 miles north of his hometown. By that time, he was gravely ill.

He arrived in Colonia Emilio Carranza three days later, stumbling and barely able to speak. His family got him to the hospital, where he was diagnosed with acute pneumonia. Based on the stage of his illness, the doctors determined that de la Fuente had contracted it about 15 days earlier-roughly a week into his jail stay-according to medical paperwork and an interview with the hospital director. The doctors did what they could, but de la Fuente was too far gone. His cousins and a sister stood vigil as he dwindled and eventually fell into a coma. He was pronounced dead on June 23-exactly four weeks after the traffic stop.

We may never know what exactly happened to David de la Fuente inside Durango. To see his health records, family members would have to file a signed release and affidavit-something they are, not surprisingly, scared to do. What is clear is that Arpaio's flavor of law enforcement will spread around the state if the aclu (which filed suit in May) fails to stop SB 1070 from taking effect. "The intent of the law was that it would be used disproportionately against people who have certain physical attributes," notes Michael Wishnie, a professor at Yale Law School. "Police on the ground understand that and will act accordingly."

This past September, during my visit to Colonia Emilio Carranza, Norberto Alvarado Santana said little as he showed me his cousin's grave, in a humble cemetery adorned with plastic flowers and Virgen de Guadalupe figurines. A stout, reserved man, he measured his words cautiously before finally breaking the silence. "There's a word for what happened to my cousin David," he said. "It's homicide." -Aura Bogado

Ixtoc I: Identification and Dramatistic Pentad

As oil gushes from a wellhead 160 feet below the water’s surface in the Gulf of Mexico, how does a company effectively respond to the public? Kenneth Burke’s discussion of persuasive rhetoric, and specifically the concept of Identification provides an adequate starting point. Burke (1950) states that “a speaker persuades an audience by the use of stylistic identifications; his act of persuasion may be for the purpose of causing the audience to identify itself with the speakers interests (p.46).” Petroleos Mexicanos (Pemex) is Mexico’s national petroleum monopoly, which has a distinct interest in the extraction and refinement of raw crude oil. When an incident such as the Ixtoc I or Deepwater Horizon explosions occur, how does an oil company attempt to compel the public to identify with the interests of the company? In the case of the Ixtoc I, the approach of Pemex as accounted through their statements to the press align with a concern for the impact upon the environment and gulf depending industries, and the need for fuel and power.

In better understanding how the communicator attempt to persuade their audience, Burke (1968) presented the Dramatistic Pentad, which focuses upon the act, agent, agency, scene, and purpose of the communication. This approach focuses primarily upon the act, or what the rhetoric attempts to convince the audience of an occurrence or series of events. The Pentad also consists of where the act occurred, who was involved, the method used by the agent to perform the act, and why the act occurred. The following analysis of those aspects is a result of statements made or released to the press by Pemex during the Ixtoc I incident.

Agent

Pemex, as an organization, represents the agent.

Agency

Pemex was able to act given the organizations position as the only petroleum company within Mexico.

Scene

The Gulf of Mexico near the Yucatan Peninsula served as the scene for the blowout of the Ixtoc I. As the oil continued to leak, the scene of the incident extended to the beaches in Mexico and Texas to the west of the Ixtoc I well.

Act

Pemex was initially engaged in the act of drilling an onshore oil well in what was referred to as one of the country’s richest oil fields. After the incident at the Ixtoc I well, leaving the rig “burning out of control,” the act became a response effort on the part of Pemex. Specifically, the act of stopping the oil from gushing out of the well, which was longer connected to the Ixtoc I rig, collecting the oil that had already leaked into the Gulf, and preventing that oil from impacting the area surrounding the well. The act became about divers attempting to stop the leak, installing video cameras to monitor the leak, laying boom to contain the oil, drilling a relief well, then drilling a second (backup) relief well incase the first attempt failed, and burning off the oil that could not be collected at the surface.

Purpose

The goal of the initial act was to collect the fuel source necessary to power the country of Mexico and customers of Pemex. The purpose of the act becomes returning to daily operations, while minimizing the damage done by the oil leaking from the Ixtoc I well.

Adaptive Leadership and Public Perception

As we saw in the 2006 film, The Queen, adaptive leadership is necessary in order to accommodate modern times. In the film, Queen Elizabeth II chooses to ignore the media after the sudden death of Princess Diana. The Queen was very set in her ways, believing it unnecessary to make a public statement. As a result, the press sketched her as very cold and out of touch with the public. Her constituents agreed with this depiction as well - her approval ratings dropped drastically, with 70% of the public disagreeing with the handling of Diana's death.

It wasn't until the Queen took up Prime Minister Tony Blair's recommendations that she was able to save her reputation. She finally agreed to fly the flag half mast over Buckingham Palace, support a public funeral at Westminster Abbey, and make a televised statement regarding Diana's legacy. Through this, her audience got the mediated reality they had been hoping for. While the authenticity of her remarks are up for debate, the British people finally heard one of their prominent leaders come forth regarding the ordeal, providing a sense of hope and direction.

Another example of adaptive leadership includes Barack Obama's use of social media in the 2008 presidential election. In another class I'm currently taking - "Organizational and Political Culture in a Networked Society" - Dr. Linda Gallant discussed how Obama's use of new media played a strong role in his ultimate success. Dr. Gallant described a recent presentation, "Web-based Social Media, Communication, & Politics," where she presented research showing that on Facebook - between January 7th and 14th of 2008 - Obama had 60% of supporters while Hillary Clinton only had 18%. Deftly using new media channels helped Obama gain this lead.

The ability to stay modern and understand the needs of people in present times contributes to a leader's success or failure. Queen Elizabeth and President Obama both illustrate how leaders who adapt are often more well-received by the public.

Sometimes There's Nothing to Do But Take Full Responsibility

I've been focusing this semester on situations involving law enforcement and how communication has impacted tactical decisions as well as how post-event reactions are handled.

One situation that is unfortunately close to home is that of Victoria Snelgrove, who was a 22 year old Junior at Emerson when she died during celebrations after the Boston Red Sox won the ALCS over the New York Yankees in 2004. She was an innocent bystander in the general vicinity of a crowd of people where police reported that some people where getting out of hand. A gun that fires pepper spray packets was accidentally discharged, hitting Snellgrove in the eye and mortally injuring her. She died the next day.

In the aftermath, the Boston Police took full responsibility. It's really all they could have done, as the facts were painfully clear and there was no excuse for what happened. In some cases, police have been known to "protect their own" when events like this take place. But when the rest of the city was so overjoyed with the Red Sox victory, to try to cover it up of shift blame would not have been well received at all.

The police commissioner, Mayor Menino, and Governor Mit Romney attended Snelgrove's funeral as a show of support and sympathy for the family, and the officers involved were all punished.

This situation was a tragic accident, and by accepting full responsibility from the start, the Boston Police avoided what could have been an ugly backlash from the public.

Achieving the "New Normal"

In “Constructing the ‘New Normal’ Through Post-Crisis Discourse”, O’Hair defines the idea of new normal as “a broadly reconstituted order that incorporates new understandings and interpretations of the crisis into a revised status quo” (p. 4). It is basically the version of a company once it has restarted daily activities and has tweaked operations to reflect learning and growth as a result of the crisis. In some cases, the “new normal” is a positive for a company because it has seized the opportunity of a crisis. I believe in the case of Bank of America, this is true.

CEO Lewis resigned at the end of 2009 and Brian Moynihan, the former President of Consumer and Small Business of Bank of America, took over the company. As an employee of Bank of America before becoming CEO, Moynihan was a revised version of the status quo with a less tarnished reputation.

Bank of America also fully repaid the federal bailout it had received. This move diluted existing stock but wiped away an enormous chunk of debt. It gave Merrill Lynch the fresh start it needed and now that it was under the Bank of America umbrella, Bank of America could begin profiting from the merger.

These moves did not directly restore the lost shareholder trust, but they did allow the company to return to normal operations. The chaos associated with a company enduring mounting losses, quieted, and Bank of America resumed working toward its goal – making profit and expanding its reach. As the company stays on track with these goals, shareholder rage will subside and the new normal relationship between the parties will blossom.

Scribd: Effective or Ineffective Communication Strategy?

In October 2009, Bank of America decided to waive its attorney-client privilege and release information about the legal advice it received from its outside lawyers regarding the merger. This was a belated attempt at disclosure. And with the help of the Internet these internal documents spread fast. They were posted on the social publishing site www.scribd.com. Direct links to these Scribd documents were embedded in online newspaper and magazine articles as well as posted on blogs. The public now had immediate access to Bank of America’s internal correspondence and quickly bloggers speculated about the company’s true motive in the Merrill Lynch merger. The released emails clearly detailed the company’s desire for government assistance and proved that upper management was very aware of the losses it would be incurring in acquiring Merrill Lynch.

Interestingly, this strategy drew more negative press than the company anticipated. Shareholders saw it as too little too late, and legal bloggers found the decision to be unconventional. The website was definitely an effective way to give the public all the information in the case. Unfortunately for Bank of America, the information did not portray the company in the best light. It would have been a super effective communication strategy in a crisis if it clearly illustrated the company’s innocence. As this was not the case, the idea was met with mixed reviews on effectiveness.

http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/19/bank-of-america-e-mails-shed-light-on-merrill-deal/

The Press as Shaper of Events

A recent Rolling Stone article features General McChrystal and his top aides making critical and disparaging remarks about Obama's national security team. Specifically, McChrystal said Obama appeared "uncomfortable and intimidated" during their first meeting. The article also quotes a McChrystal aide referring to Vice President Biden as "Bite Me."

Regarding the Rolling Stone article, The New York Times says, "Over all, the magazine article depicted General McChrystal at the head of a small circle of aides engaged in what came close to locker-room trash talk as they discussed foreign policy, the French, their allegiance to one another and their own concerns about course of the war." (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/24/us/politics/24mcchrystal.html?hp)

Today, McChrystal resigned from his post and Obama announced General Petraeus as his replacement. This removal illustrates how the press can be a powerful shaper of events. In The Press Effect, Jamieson and Waldman say, "The press both covers events and, in choosing what to report and how to report it, shapes their outcome. In 1959, Douglas Carter dubbed the press 'the fourth branch of government,' arguing that reporters were not merely observers but also were participants with a substantial degree of political power." (p.95)

McChrystal chose to make the comments he said. However, it was in the hands of the journalist, Michael Hastings, to report the comments and the context in which they occurred. The decision to print these comments ultimately led to a change in the leadership of American forces in Afghanistan. Typically, public figures who wish to stay in good stead with their colleagues/constituents try to control the press in order to create a positive image - McChrystal demonstrates how it's always possible to achieve the exact opposite.