Reviewed by Willard M. Oliver
Radford University
PO Box 6934
Radford, VA 24142
(540) 831-6161
woliver@radford.edu
The convergence of academic politics and Criminal Justice education
was driven home to me in the fall of 1996, when for the first time in my
young career I felt the impact of the former regarding the significance
of the latter. I was hired in the fall of 1994 at a small college
that was expanding from an Associates program to a Baccalaureate program
in Criminal Justice. At first the establishment of a Criminal Justice
program seemed fairly straightforward to me, but little would I realize
that the establishment of Criminal Justice programs is often rife with
politics. I would soon find myself embroiled in a debate to abolish
the program I had helped create and expand because of the argument that
Criminal Justice was not a true academic discipline, but rather an “interdisciplinary”
program under Sociology. I argued vehemently that it was its own
academic discipline, but when challenged, I had little to back it up.
I turned to an article published in ACJS Today, written by Frank Cullen,
a former president of the ACJS, entitled, “Fighting Back: Criminal Justice
as an Academic Discipline” (Jan./Feb. 1995). While it was enough
support to stave off any consideration of abolishing the Criminal Justice
program, coupled with my demonstration that in the short time the program
had existed, students were getting jobs in the Criminal Justice field and
enrollment was up, it left me wondering about Cullen’s article and his
argument that Criminal Justice is indeed its own academic discipline.
As a result of my shallow victory I began exploring the evolution of Criminal
Justice and learned much about academic politics, both inside and outside
of Criminal Justice.
It was not until recently (Fall 2000), when looking for books on Criminal
Justice History for a graduate seminar on the same subject, that I discovered
the book published by Frank Morn titled, Academic Politics and the History
of Criminal Justice Education (1995). Sight unseen, I adopted the
book, ordered it, and read it in one sitting upon receipt. It was
the most concise, eye-opening examination of the Criminal Justice discipline
that I have read and with each turn of the page I learned something new
about the discipline in which I have earnestly tried to establish a career.
His review of the historical evolution is straightforward and maintains
a continual link between the past and present. Woven amongst the
discourse on the history of Criminal Justice is how much politics, particularly
academic politics, has been responsible for the evolution of Criminal Justice
programs in the United States. And yet still deeper, he delineates
how much politics within the Criminal Justice discipline has shaped and
molded what many of us accept as the “status quo” of Criminal Justice today.
Finally, I would be remiss if I did not mention that the book leaves one
(at least one within the discipline) with a slight longing to have been
part of those early days of the creation and formation of this discipline,
they must have been exciting times.
Morn commences his book with a chapter on Academic Politics and Professionalism
from the time period 1870 to 1930. It is here Morn delineates the
evolution of both the university/college system and professions/professional
schools (e.g., Military, Medical, Legal, and Divinity). He then further
delineates between the various “schools” of thought, such as the Humanities
and Social Sciences and then briefly describes the history of those disciplines
closely related to Criminal Justice, Political Science and Sociology.
It is within this historical framework that Morn establishes our understanding
of the state of higher education into which Criminal Justice would be born.
He clearly articulates it was not a time of peaceful acquisition of knowledge,
but rather one of increasing specialization, academic turf-wars, and, more
simply stated, politics.
Morn then proceeds (Chapter 2) to discuss the progressive movement and
the specific beginnings of the reform era of policing upon which one man
receives the lion-share of credit, August Vollmer. Morn hones in
on Vollmer’s creation of the first police academy and his work with the
University of California at Berkeley to establish a school of police education.
While Vollmer’s work was significant, his visions of a police school would
be continued by a number of proteges that would continue to push for the
Vollmer model, including such people as O.W. Wilson, William Wiltberger,
and V. A. Leonard (Chapter 3). The political debate that would ultimately
emerge is still one that is relevant today, and that is the difference
between Criminal Justice education as a practical “hands-on” form of vocational
training versus the more theoretical application of scientific principles.
Although the dichotomy seems to have perhaps blended more today, there
can still be seen the differences between the practitioner-turned academic
and the “pure academic” who has achieved his or her status through straight
education. The debate over which one is “better” or more in line
with the direction of the Criminal Justice discipline is left for other
forums, rather it is important to note, as Morn does, that this dichotomy
was relevant from the beginning and has helped to shape and mold the discipline
we now serve.
This issue would continue to plague the newly formed “School of Criminology”
at Berkeley in the post World War II years (Chapter 4). While the
school under O. W. Wilson was attempting to expand from policing and more
toward Criminal Justice, academic politics and concepts that “criminology”
was simply a “police school” were hard to resolve. And strikingly,
this author knows of many colleges where the academic concepts of Criminal
Justice are seen as just that, a training ground for future cops and correctional
guards, where the oft used joke is Criminal Justice professors “teach Handcuffing
101.” Those ideas, as revealed by Morn, are clearly not new impressions,
but rather ones that are deeply rooted in the evolution of the Criminal
Justice discipline. The response then, much like our response today,
was to attempt to root the discipline further into “academic” principles,
which included the development of a professional organization, “The Society
for the Advancement of Criminology” (forerunner to the American Society
of Criminology), and the publication of a journal, Criminologica (forerunner
to Criminology). However, with this shift toward entrenching the
discipline further into the academic institution, it began to force the
“Vollmerian” concepts out of the Criminology discipline and along with
it the “police professors.”
The political forces at work within this usurpation of the Vollmerian
concepts would spawn a new organization, the International Association
of Police Professors in 1963 (Chapter 5). It was in this counter-political
action that the discipline of Criminal Justice would begin to germinate
and combined with a number of forces, mostly external, the true academic
discipline of Criminal Justice would begin to grow. The fall of the
School of Criminology at Berkeley (Chapter 6), the increase in crime during
the 1960s and the resulting federal grant dollars being dumped into upgrading
police education, and hence the development of several programs aimed at
both police science (i.e., John Jay College of Police Science) and Criminal
Justice scholar-academics (i.e., State University of New York at Albany)
(Chapter 7), would promulgate the development of the criminal justice discipline.
More important, the concept of a “Criminal Justice System” advanced by
the President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration’s report
titled The Challenge of Crime in a Free Society (1967), would help to solidify
the direction of the discipline and brought about the name change of the
International Association of Police Professors to that of the Academy of
Criminal Justice Sciences in 1970.
In the short thirty years of its existence (specifically under the new
name), the Academy has also had a most interesting history and development.
The first decade was marked by very hard core politics that helped shape
its current existence and, to some degree, almost caused its extinction
in the late 1970s with various incidents of embezzlement, corruption, and,
of course, turf battles (i.e., Baccalaureate programs versus Community
Colleges, etc.) (Chapter 8). One aspect of these turf battles that
also threatened the early existence of the Academy was that of regional
factions. Morn reports:
William Mathias was key in the founding of the Georgia Association of
Criminal Justice Educators in 1967. Richter Moore was the first president
of the North Carolina Association of Criminal Justice Educators in 1970.
A Southern Association of Criminal Justice began in 1968 but soon died.
It was revived in 1972 with Mathias and Moore as founding fathers.
Donald Riddle, Richard Myren and James Curran came from the North to gauge
and support this new regional organization. The Souther Association
grew rapidly, and Richter Moore felt that in the early 1970s it was a stronger
force in criminal justice than the Academy. Southerners were justifiably
proud because their organization came into existence independently of the
national one. (Morn 1995, 143)
Although there were some fears that regional associations, especially the Southern, could possibly undermine the national Association, Gordon Misner proposed a kickback of 10 percent of the national dues to regional associations that were affiliated with the national Academy. As Morn explained:
What the Southern Association would do was critical to Misner’s plan. Since it was the only regional group in existence, the entire plan might fail and a splintering of the national group would result if it balked. Thanks to the work of Mathias and Moore, however, the Southern Association petitioned to be the Academy’s first recognized region at the very meeting at which Misner proposed his plan. (Morn 1995, 143)
The resulting impact would be the proliferation of the regional Criminal
Justice Associations, consisting of the Midwest (1975), Southwestern (1976),
Northeastern (1976), and North Atlantic (1977). By the 1980s, both
the Academy and the Criminal Justice discipline would achieve the relative
status of becoming entrenched as an institution and both the Academy and
the discipline would begin to flourish.
Morn completes his book with a discussion of a number of issues concerning
both the Academy and the discipline. He discusses accreditation (Chapter
8), which has most recently developed into both the Minimum Standards of
Criminal Justice Education and a formal mechanism for program review; the
desire to move the national office to Washington, D.C. (Chapter 9) which
was recently achieved in 1999; the establishment of a Criminal Justice
journal, Justice Quarterly (Chapter 9); and the general growth of the annual
conference, membership, and programs across the nation. While history
is still being written and many of the debates still rear their ugly head
(Is Criminal Justice an academic discipline? Is it a social science
or humanity? Should it be taught by academics or practitioners?
Isn’t it the same as Criminology? Isn’t it an interdisciplinary degree,
hence having no theoretical body of knowledge of its own? Etc.), there
should be left little doubt that Criminal Justice has become an institutionalized
part of the academic realm and continues to grow in accordance with all
of the rigors of a true academic discipline. Had the author had Morn’s
book in hand when the debate over Criminal Justice not being an academic
discipline reared its ugly-head, I truly believe there would have been
no more discussion.
Based upon this author’s experience, my passion for the Criminal Justice
discipline, and this most enlightening discourse on Criminal Justice education,
I highly recommend that every professor of Criminal Justice, regardless
of program title or perspective on Criminal Justice education, orders a
personal copy, reads it, and contemplates the role they play in this academic
discipline. This is the tie that binds us. This is the history
that we all share. And this is why we all are able to share in the
prosperity that has become the Criminal Justice discipline. In addition,
while not a topic of particular interest perhaps to the undergraduate student,
I would urge those teaching in Criminal Justice graduate programs to consider
adopting the book in an early graduate course, so that those advancing
in their Criminal Justice education can share in the history that binds
us and be welcomed into the fold. This is clearly an important publication.
Finally, the author would be remiss if I did not mention that the few
scant pages discussing the Southern Criminal Justice Association leaves
one begging for more. While the history of the Criminal Justice discipline
and the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences are important, so too is the
history of this first regional association. Although the Southern
Criminal Justice Association website details some of the history in the
SCJA Policy Manual section (See Southern Criminal Justice Association 2000),
what is sorely needed is a narrative of the SCJA’s history available online.
Morn’s words for the SCJA were kind, but there must be more to it hiding
beneath these two pages of praise. This should be the next step in
recording “the History of Criminal Justice Education.”
References
Cullen, Frank. (1995). “Fighting Back: Criminal Justice as an Academic Discipline.” ACJS Today Jan./Feb: 1-3.
President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration. (1967). The Challenge of Crime in a Free Society. Washington, D.C.: U.S. G.P.O.
Southern Criminal Justice Association. (2000). “SCJA Policy Manual.” Southern Criminal Justice Association Homepage. Available online at http://www.scja.net/