By Uhuru B. Rowe
August 23, 2018
Email: uhururowe76@yahoo.com
“The function of Sussex II State Prison is to provide a safe and secure environment…Offenders… have the right to be free from verbal and physical abuse from others.” — Sussex II State Prison Offender Orientation Manual (2018)
The numerous policies of Sussex II State Prison (SIISP), like the one quoted above from the Offender Orientation Manual (OOM), looks good on paper, but they are rarely, if ever, put into practice by SIISP employees.
Consider the case of Brian O. Smith, Prison I.D. #1152312, a New Afrikan (Black) prisoner here at SIISP. I first met Smith when he was released from the Restrictive Housing Unit (i.e. the hole) back in May and assigned to a cell in the same block as me. When he told me he went by the alias Freedom, I immediately felt a connection with the brother because my first name, in Swahili, also means Freedom. It wasn’t long before we started sitting in the day-room together and strategizing about how we could use the grievance procedure to redress our dehumanizing living conditions. During the course of these Think Tank sessions, a brotherhood was formed. So when Sergeant B. L. Clinkscales, herself an Afrikan, tried to force Smith to sit at a cafeteria table with three die-hard white supremacists against his will, I took it extremely personal.
Even though the OOM says that, after receiving our meals, prisoners must sit where instructed by a correctional officer, this policy is almost never enforced. We are allowed great leeway in choosing where we want to sit in the cafeteria. However, during lunch, on June 5, 2018, Sgt. Clinkscales ordered Smith to sit at a table with three members of the racist Aryan Brotherhood gang. When Smith refused, Sgt. Clinkscales threatened to write him a Disciplinary Offense Report (DOR) if he did not sit where she instructed him to. I listened intently as Smith tried to explain to Sgt. Clinkscales that, as a New Afrikan, she was putting his life and safety in jeopardy by ordering him to sit at a table with three members of a racist organization which has a well documented history of committing acts of violence against New Afrikan prisoners all over the country.
Not moved by Smith’s explanation as to why he did not want to sit at a table with three white supremacists, Sgt. Clinkscales then instructed another Correctional Officer (C/O) to give her Smith’s name and prison number so that she could write him an infraction. Upon exiting the cafeteria, I asked Sgt. Clinkscales if, upon entering a restaurant, if she would allow herself (and her family) to be seated at a table with a bunch of white supremacists with swastikas tattooed all over their face and arms? Recognizing that a truthful answer would reveal a contradiction, she refused to answer.
The next day, on June 6, C/O J. Booth served Smith a DOR for “Disobeying an Order.” (Case # SXII-2018-1160) In the body of the DOR, Sgt. Clinkscales described the incident this way:
“On the above date and approximate time, I, Sgt. Clinkscales, gave a direct order to the offender to sit down at a specific table. All the offenders were being told where to set [sic] in the A side dining hall. The Offender refused to do so. Therefore this charge is written.”
Predictably, there was no mention of the reason why Smith refused to sit at the table and there was no mention of the threat Smith said he would’ve felt for his safety and well being had he sat at a table with three white supremacists/neo-nazis.
When one views this incident against the backdrop of the deadly Unite the Right white-supremacist rally in Charlottesville on August 12, 2018, where 32-year-old anti-racist Heather Heyer was run over by a car driven by self-avowed neo-nazi James Fields, Jr., it is inconceivable that Sgt. Clinkscales would try and force a Black prisoner to sit at a table with three white supremacists, especially after he repeatedly expressed concern for his safety and well being. Her actions didn’t reflect the actions of someone who desires to “provide a safe and secure environment” for incarcerated people and to protect the right of incarcerated people “to be free from verbal and physical abuse from others.” They reflected the actions of someone who wanted to instigate violence.
Why would prison officials want to instigate violence between prisoners? Consider this: Virginia has one of the safest prison systems in the country. Meaning, there’s a relatively low number of prisoner-on-prisoner or prisoner-on-staff assaults as compared to other prison systems. So the State cannot rationalize the existence of prisons like Sussex II which — along with Sussex I, Red Onion, and Wallens Ridge State Prisons — were built, ostensibly, to house the worst-of-the-worst. However, the vast majority of prisoners here at SIISP have no history of institutional violence and are compliant with prison rules, several years infraction-free, and qualify for medium security custody status.
So how does SIISP remain open as a maximum security prison which was built for “the-worst-of-the-worst” when a majority of prisoners housed here have no history of institutional violence or assaultive behavior?
Well, prison officials nationwide are known to instigate and allow violence to occur among a select group of prisoners which serves a valid purpose. Why? So the violence can be used as a propaganda tool to justify keeping prisons like SIISP open as maximum security prisons in order to ensure job security for ALL SIISP employees, including for Sgt. Clinkscales. Why else would a black Sergeant try to force a black prisoner to sit at a cafeteria table with three white supremacists/neo-nazis, especially in the aftermath of the deadly Unite the Right white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, and then punish him for refusing to do so?