Selective enforcement
This is Andrew Benedict-Nelson, social change strategist and innovation educator. Each week, I share a question that you and your organization can use to find a new perspective on the toughest problems you face. Reply to the e-mail or comment on the site and we can talk about them together!
NOW FOR THIS WEEK’S QUESTION…
Almost no law on the books is enforced consistently 100% of the time. This goes not just for the laws of governments, but organizational rules and even the rules of technological systems. Think about an important rule in the world of the problem you are trying to solve that is inconsistently enforced. What does the pattern of enforcement tell you and why?
“No one is above the law,” we love to say. But we all know it isn’t true. It isn’t just that some people seem to have a special ability to slip through the cracks of enforcement. Some laws were actually designed to be enforced in certain situations and not in others. For example, if cops pulled over every person who drove one mile per hour over the speed limit, they would be giving a ticket to nearly every driver. They would also completely fail to achieve the objective of the law, since this would make it impossible to prioritize stopping truly reckless drivers.
So some degree of selective enforcement is expected with almost every law. Yet even with speeding laws, that reasonable discretion can quickly turn into unreasonable prejudice, as countless people of color can attest. A rule that may look the same for everyone on paper may be enforced very differently depending on who is doing the enforcing. That doesn’t just include police officers, but the city council members and judges who collectively determine if a jurisdiction is going to go easy on most people, or if they instead hound citizens with fees and fines. Completely different result, even if the posted speed limit between one town and another is the same.
Looking at such selective enforcement can tell you a lot about the social norms behind the problems you are trying to solve. Here’s how:
HOW TO DO IT
Consider a few different rules — What you’re really looking for with this exercise is a range of behavior. In almost every city and state, there are ancient laws on the books that no one enforces anymore; these aren’t very interesting examples for this exercise, though, because they don’t teach us anything new about present behavior. You also shouldn’t go for the most glaring example of flawed enforcement if it will only teach you something you already know. Instead, you should consider several different rules and pursue the one that makes you say, “Wow, I never thought about that one.”
Explain the range of enforcement — To pick a particular rule at all, you must already know that it is enforced differently in different situations. Try to describe all of these situations as best you can. Do your best to rely on real examples, not conjecture. I don’t normally include a “research” step in these exercises, but this may be a case where it makes sense to ask a range of people about their encounters with the rule and its enforcers. You may find extremes of punishment and privilege you never expected. Or you may find that the differences are more subtle — the point is that you need to know what they actually are.
Look for patterns in the behavior — This is where things get interesting. Every time we look into formal rules and laws in this work, we are doing so to gain insight into the less formal world of human behavior and social norms. Selective enforcement is almost never arbitrary; it gives us a window into the unwritten rules of the enforcers and the system behind them. You want to approach this behavior with as much specificity as you can. It also helps to apply your empathy, even if you believe the selective enforcement is totally unfair. For example, perhaps only a certain type of applicant is screened for a program. Instead of just assuming that the screeners hate people of that type, dig into the process to understand if people of that type are being prioritized for some specific reason.
Think about what you can do with the patterns — One problem with this exercise is that it automatically triggers a certain kind of solution: “Make them enforce the rules fairly, damnit!” There may be situations where it makes sense to write that on a sign and protest at City Hall, but don’t just assume that’s the best approach. For example, let’s say you discover that a city is disproportionately fining people from out of town for some offense. It’s not clear that you want to encourage increased enforcement for locals; instead, you would want to look at deeper assumptions about who belongs in the community and who doesn’t, then consider the best way to change them.
CAN YOU GIVE ME AN EXAMPLE?
Yes, and it’s one I love. I am a geek for accreditation processes. Every time I hear someone say, “Our school is getting reviewed this month” or “Oh no, that could ding us with the Joint Commission” I want to hear all about it. It’s not just because I love hearing about arcane rules. It’s because these kinds of regulatory bodies almost always have some kind of selective enforcement, depending on who is running the process, what problems the institution may have had in the past, or what’s been in the news lately. I’m not an expert in helping any of my clients pass these tests, but when I ask, “Is there any action you could take that would make you so good in this category that an inspector never questions your credibility ever again?” I tend to get some very interesting results.
COOL, SO WHAT MAKES THIS WORK?
This question is an example of how to learn more about the world of your problem using the limits dynamic. (You can learn more about it here.) It’s one of six innovation dynamics I help people master to improve their critical thinking and build strategies for social change. Reply to this e-mail with your answer to the question and I’ll let you know what I think! Or learn more by visiting http://www.teachingsocialchange.com.
.