This episode [on 6 November 1965] began when Officer E. G. approached a large group of inmates who were congregated on the yard. This was the only large gathering of inmates on the yard at the time and as Mr. G. neared, he stated that he could hear small parts of a conversation, which he lists as being: “Yes I heard that they cut out their tongues last week,” and “The white man wasn’t anything but a devil,” and “The white man was really holding the black man down.” Mr. G. states that he did not know which of the inmates in the group had made the statements, however, Mr. G. states that there were several white inmates within hearing distance of this group and to prevent what could have caused a racial disturbance of some degree, he (Mr. G.) ordered the group to disperse.
The inmates in this group refused to obey Mr. G.’s order and at this point I would like to stress that all these inmates, with the exception of three, were known by this office as claiming to be followers of the Black Muslim Sect within the institution and after being brought to the Isolation Unit these three inmates claimed that they too were Black Muslims. Inmate W. informed Officer G. that he was not going to move and inmate J. then told the group that Mr. G. was the same officer who had asked him (J.) for his name and number a few days before. Then looking directly at Officer G., inmate J. stated “you’re nothing but a white nigger.” . . .
The Muslims were also unique among prisoner groups in their vigorous recruitment of membership. Defining themselves as a movement, they preached their doctrine on the recreation yards, on the industrial assignments, and inside the cell houses. Internal memoranda from the period (obviously collected with an eye toward the litigation) include numerous letters from inmates complaining of harassment by Muslim proselytizers.
This is in regards of a matter which I feel you should check into.
I am assigned to Tailor Shop, North Wing, working on the pocket line, I do my work as best I can, under present conditions.
My complaint is as follows:
I have two fellow inmates working on the line with myself and another inmate making the count be four (4), 3 colored fellows and myself white.
Two of these fellows are constantly casting remarks about the White man in America being a Devil and indirectly this is a threat, not only to me, but also any colored fellow that’s not of the Muslim faith.
Twice I have prevented Inmate L. from attacking these Muslims.
He and I both have repeatedly requested to the floor man to move us to another line to avoid trouble.
The Black Muslims not only made demands of the Stateville administration and the Department of Public Safety, but they complained to the courts as well. By framing their grievances as violations of classic constitutional guarantees, they were able to mobilize support within the liberal establishment, particularly the Chicago Loop law firm of Jenner and Block, and the American Civil Liberties Union.
Muslim leader Thomas Cooper filed his original pro se suit against Warden Pate in 1962 from his segregation cell, alleging under section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act that his confinement in segregation was retribution for his religious beliefs. He claimed that he was being unconstitutionally denied access to the Quran, Muslim literature (particularly Muhammad Speaks) and the Muslim clergy. During the next five years of Stateville’s most famous legal battle, Cooper received assistance from LaSalle Street Lawyers, the ACLU and Elijah Muhammad, who wrote to inform Cooper that he had hired an attorney named Edward Jacko “to protect the interests of Cooper and the Nation.”
Cooper’s original writ was dismissed by the Federal District Court for failure to state a cause of action. The ruling was affirmed by the Seventh Circuit Federal Court of Appeals.16 But in a historic per curiam decision, the Supreme Court of the United States reversed the lower courts and ordered the district court to hold a trial on Cooper’s complaints.17
The trial (held in April 1965) forced Director Ragen and Warden Pate to justify their refusal to recognize the Muslims as a religious group. On this issue they were on weak ground. They could make no rational argument for allowing Christian inmates to read the Bible but for refusing to allow Muslim inmates the Quran or for refusing Muslim inmates Arabic documents while Jewish inmates were allowed Hebrew literature.
Arguing that any concessions to the Muslims, no matter how slight, would lead to chaos within the prison, the director and warden appeared capricious and arbitrary before the courts and the public. The trial was given television news coverage and was widely reported in the press. To the inmate population, the picture of Cooper and Pate testifying against one another as equal adversaries did much to increase the Muslims’ prestige and to intensify the challenge to the traditional status of prisoners.
Judge Austin’s memorandum opinion, upheld on appeal,18 constituted a partial victory for the Muslims. Judge Austin ordered that Muslims be allowed access to the Quran, that they be allowed communication and visits with Muslim ministers, and that they be allowed to attend Muslim religious services. On the other complaints, the judge refused to allow Muslims to receive contemporary Muslim literature (like Muhammad Speaks) or Arabic textbooks and refused to order Cooper released from segregation.
Throughout the five years of litigation (and even afterward), Warden Pate and his captains were determined to expose the Muslims as traditional “troublemakers” who were transparently disguising their true intention to destroy the order of the prison under patently absurd claims of constitutional rights. The organization’s elite denied any social or political significance to Muslim activities. The segregation rebellion of 1964 was dismissed as an attempt to get publicity in order to “embarrass and harass the administration.” So concerned was the administration with public reaction that lieutenants were required to turn in their blackjacks during the trial to minimize the possibility of any claims of brutality. (They never got them back.)
The prison administration adopted the posture that any concession to the Muslims would totally undermine prison discipline. The comprehensive “Muslim file” was filled with letters from Pate to state’s attorney Thomas Decker calling the latter’s attention to newspapers articles from all over the country which reported unfavorably on Muslim activities on the streets or in other prisons. Letters passed along criticisms of the Muslims by other wardens, and included a resolution by the American Correctional Association urging the Muslims’ suppression as well as reports of disciplinary infractions involving Muslim inmates at Stateville. Director Ragen wrote to U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark on 7 May 1964:
It would be impossible for me to stress too strongly the importance of the [Cooper] case to the penitentiary system. There is absolutely no question but that the Black Muslims are dedicated to destroying discipline and authority in the prison system. Any concession is a step toward chaos.
Warden Pate answered an interrogatory in connection with Cooper v. Pate on 17 September 1964 in similar fashion:
The prison has been fertile field for converting prisoners to the Black Muslim Sect. Their policy of Black Supremacy appeals to the non-conformists and agitators in the penal institution because they realize that their disciplinary record is so poor and they have no justification for their conduct, therefore they align themselves with an organization such as the Black Muslims and then claim because they are members or sympathizers the officials are persecuting them and that the majority of their disciplinary reports are false or exaggerated.
The Stateville administrators implored those individuals outside the prison to whom the prison had become increasingly accountable to accept their definition of the situation. The definition of the Muslims as a group unalterably opposed to prison authority apparently was held by the “professional” staff in the Office of the Criminologist, as is evident in the following memorandum reporting on a classification interview.
During the course of classification interviews the inmate was very polite, answering most questions with “sir” and in a very quiet, responsive manner. He told me that since 1957 he has been a member of the Black
Muslims, has attended the Temple regularly and has followed the precepts concerning abstinence from drinking and narcotics, as well as the dietary rules. He added, however, that he was not one of the militant persons, stated that he knew of the suit which has been filed but in his opinion nothing would come of it and it was the wrong way to act. He also stated that he knew he was in prison, that the Black Muslim religion was not accepted and that he fully intended to make the best of this, make no demands and practice whatever he felt necessary alone and bothering no one.
He seems sincere in his statements but this was discussed with the State Criminologist and it was felt that if the inmate has had a seven-year connection with the Black Muslims he may well be giving lip service to his intentions or may even represent the new tack that the Muslims are to present if they intend to “pull in their horns” prior to any forthcoming senatorial investigation.
Conflict with the Muslims was always most intense in the segregation unit, where the Muslim leaders were concentrated.19 The 1965 memorandum opinion in Cooper v. Pate only heightened the conflict between Muslims and officials. Both sides appealed the district court’s ruling, and the administration continued to compile its evidence on Muslim disruptiveness. On 30 July 1965, Warden Pate wrote to the Illinois attorney general.
Through our Senior Captains I have been advised that those inmates who are followers of the Elijah Muhammeds [sic] and who adhere to the Black Muslim Sect have been subjecting our officers to the following:
Being cursed at; Threatening; Being spit upon.
There have been several instances of disobeying orders and disrespect towards the officers, insolence, etc.—the violations are relatively of the same nature. It has been increasing and is widespread throughout the institution. More and more of this information is being received daily.
I believe these incidents show the utter contempt the Black Muslims, as a whole, have for the rules and regulations of the institution. Especially the attitude towards the officers who endeavor to enforce the rules. We are of the opinion that we will have further problems with the Black Muslims after we implement Article 4 of the Judgement Order issued by Judge Austin. We feel that the tolerance of the non-followers of the Elijah Mohammeds will become more and more less tolerant of their preaching and attempting to strong-arm them into joining the movement. . . .
This information is being sent to you in order to keep your office informed of the developments which resulted due to the recent case of Cooper vs myself. I will endeavor to keep you informed of any future information I receive from our officers concerning this sect.
Cooper’s own disciplinary record was obviously embellished by the administration for purposes of discrediting him with respect to his lawsuit. Submitted as “Deposition Exhibit B” in connection with Cooper v. Pate is a disciplinary record consisting of eighty-seven tickets between 26 February 1953 and 9 February 1965. Fourteen of these tickets were given out between May 1964 and February 1965 for the same offense of “contacting other inmates through the pipes in the Segregation Unit plumbing system.” In order to get this information against Cooper, an officer was daily ordered to the basement of the segregation unit, where, by keeping an ear to the plumbing, he could “tap” the conversations being carried out by the inmates who emptied the water out of their commodes in order to talk to one another over the pipes.
In 1966, rumors of an imminent Muslim takeover of B house generated a considerable internal administrative correspondence. While the cell house takeover did not materialize, the Muslims did organize a hunger strike in July 1966, and continued to be sent to isolation for flouting authority, which offense included possession and distribution of contraband Muslim literature.20
The Muslim problem as perceived by the administration became utterly intolerable by late 1966. As if to vindicate their judgment on the Muslim issue despite the court ruling, every Muslim infraction of the rules was carefully recorded. A random sample of fifty days of disciplinary records for various years between 1946 and 1970 shows six times more “assaults on officers” in 1966 than in any other year. Also revealed is the highest number of “challenges to authority,” which include assaulting officers, throwing feces, attempting escape, breaking up cells, insubordination, demanding to be escorted to isolation, and violating a privilege denial (see table 9). That 1966 was actually the most violent year in Stateville’s history is not consistent with the recall of any informant or any other corroborating evidence. There are no filed accident reports of guards being seriously injured. All administrators and guards today agree that violence did not reach alarming proportions at Stateville till 1969. Yet the “assaults on officers” in 1970, possibly the most explosive year in the history of Stateville, are only one-fifth of the 1966 number. The most likely explanation for the wave of assaults in 1966 is that a change in the reporting system occurred. These crime statistics were “manufactured” either consciously or unconsciously in the aftermath of the Cooper trial as a response to the intervention of the courts on behalf of the Muslims.
After 1966, the Muslim problem subsided somewhat, although as late as 1968 the assistant warden of the old prison wrote to Warden Pate that the Muslims “were up to something big” and that he had therefore “locked up” their six main leaders. Muslim disputes with the administration and litigation with respect to literature and diet, and other matters continues to the present.21
Ironically, Elijah Muhammad did not send a Muslim minister to the Joliet inmates and was even slow in responding to their request for one. One Stateville captain maintains that “the word came down in 1968 following the [Martin Luther] King riots from Elijah Muhammad to follow all the rules and regulations and not make waves.” Perhaps at a time when the Muslims on the streets were moving to consolidate their economic gains, the prison mosques were becoming something of an embarrassment. In any case it is not uncommon today to hear guards refer to Muslims as “some of our best inmates.”22 One industrial supervisor stated that he “couldn’t run his shop if it weren’t for the Muslims.”
While the Muslims’ activities undoubtedly affected the atmosphere of the entire prison, especially relations among the black inmates, their impact upon the day-to-day life of the prison must be placed in proper perspective. Muslim organizing often went on covertly, out of the sight of the majority of inmates. Of an inmate population in excess of three thousand, the Muslims probably never numbered more than one hundred, and many of their most dramatic challenges to authority were concentrated within the segregation unit. Only rumors of rebellion inside the unit filtered out to the general population.
The average white inmate saw perhaps a half-dozen or a dozen Muslim inmates in his cell house or huddling together on the recreation yards. The grapevine carried the word from time to time that the Muslims were “organizing something big” and going to the courts. The racial situation at the prison among the inmates persisted as it had for decades. Cells were segregated and the races were kept separate on the tiers.23 On the assignments, blacks and whites worked on different work crews. The isolation punishment cells were completely segregated. When moving through the prison in their lines, the whites always paired up together at the front of the lines and the blacks fell into place behind. Whites continued to hold the best jobs in the prison, particularly in the administration building, where the few black inmates were usually employed as janitors. While there were occasional mutterings of “white devil” and occasional instances of blacks breaking into the front of the lines, racial confrontation per se was avoided at least until 1969.
The whites and blacks organized themselves into separate social systems, mixing together only on the ball field, in infrequent work situations, or in black market business deals. Social relations among the whites continued to take into account the offense for which the prisoner had been committed, the murderers and thieves conceiving of themselves as an elite group from which “rape-o’s,” child molestors, and stool pigeons were excluded.
The solidly white guard
force was not for the most part openly racist although white inmates recall that when the blacks were not around the guards spoke of “having walked some nigger.” According to white and black inmate informants, a few of the guards wore Ku Klux Klan rings, but they were a small and insignificant faction.24 Stateville has never generated the kinds of complaints about gross brutalities that have arisen in other penitentiaries, though the captains and lieutenants were never reluctant to “fight” an inmate who threatened trouble. An insightful white informant from the period estimates that one such “fight” would occur each week. The precipitating event was most usually an inmate threat, verbal or otherwise, to an officer. Lieutenants and captains felt relatively unrestrained in subduing the inmate, usually in his cell, at the isolation unit, or in detention hospital. Looking back on the pre-1969 period, many of the captains speak openly about the “good old days” when they could “teach an inmate some respect” without fear of the courts or of the censorship of civilian outsiders.
Thus, between 1961 and 1970, Stateville experienced a period of limited change. The loss of a warden who could command absolute authority, the loss of local autonomy, heightened race consciousness among blacks, and the penetration of legal norms exposed severe strains in the authoritarian system. The incapacity of the Pate regime to adapt to the changing relationship of the prison to the outside made the violent changes after 1970 all the more sudden and cataclysmic.
II
The Search for a New Equillibrium
Warden David Brierton
4
Emergence of a Professional Administration, 1970–75
The history of adult correctional services in Illinois reflects the maintenance of essentially independent, parochially operated institutions, a phenomenon which has given rise to excessively provincial attitudes in the administration of our facilities. Much of this can be blamed on the fact that, heretofore, we have existed as a relatively subordinate adjunct to the Departments of State whose salient responsibilities were other than the administration of correctional services. The 76th General Assembly acknowledged that the rehabilitation of criminal offenders could not become an effective reality while functioning as a satellite enterprise, and thus created the new Department of Corrections.
Stateville- the Penitentiary in Mass Society Page 9