'Incorrigible, Disruptive and Dangerous'

HARVARD PROFESSOR William J. Curran provides a perfect example of the academic who disclaims responsibility for the possibly socially harmful implications of his work. Curran, Lee Professor of Legal Medicine at the School of Public Health, released a summary report, written at the request of the Departments of Correction of the New England states, in November. He recommended that the federal government establish a federal "special offenders" prison to which Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont would send their "special offenders" for a per capita charge with possible expansion to include one or more of the states of southern New England.

Curran's report has met with organized and vocal opposition. Not only ex-prisoner groups but also Matthew Dumont, assistant commissioner for drug rehabilitation in Massachusetts, the American Friends Service Committee and The Boston Globe have come out against it.

The critics point out that "special offenders" are a vaguely defined population to begin with. Prison staff selected the men in the group according to their misconduct reports. Curran's summary describes the "special offenders" as "incorrigible," "disruptive," and "dangerous" inmates. "This raises the dangerous possibility that political activists, organizers and protesters in prison will be seen as special offenders who require massive and highly professionalized forms of control," wrote Dumont.

In a recent interview, Curran described the "special offender," as someone who combines unwillingness to conform with the prison's rigid rules with frequent acts of violence.

"The most serious problem we have in this country now is violence. You deal with violence as violence ... You deal with motivation if you can but you can't be unrealistic about violence," Curran said.

In the last section of the summary, Curran suggests two possible methods of treatment for violence--drug therapy and behavior modification. Both methods have been sources of heated controversy. Dumont, for example, criticizes drugs, particularly heavy tranquilizers, as "a chemical fix for any emotional distress [which] clouds over the necessary emotional reactions to life." These tranquilizers are now proving to create permanent physical damage to the eyes, liver, and nervous system.

There has been heavy opposition to behavior modification programs since trial programs were established in federal prisons. Though in theory behavior modification works only with positive reinforcement, critics claim that when put in practice in a prison, it necessarily entails negative pressure.

Stethan Churover, professor of psychology and brain science at MIT, said, "Behavior modification is similar to the systems of reward and punishment which prisons have used for years. It is simply more organized, with a theoretical background and more powerful techniques. They have changed the words but kept the maximum security. Butner [a federal prison which used behavioral modification theory] does not have guards but counselors, not cells but modules."

A criticism that seems even more fundamental than those levied at the specific treatment methods attacks the whole concept of "treatment" of prisoners rather than punishment. This attitude assumes that the prisoner is sick, and so assumes that his criticisms of the institution are irrational.

Curran has reacted to criticism with a series of disclaimers. He maintains that his study was only intended to determine the feasibility of classifying the "special offender" and managing the group with a regional approach. He says that he did not recommend a treatment program for the "special offenders". But the summary states, "we suggest consideration of the above treatment methods"--drug therapy and behavior modification. How much difference is there between recommending and suggesting consideration?

Curran maintains that the summary could be misinterpreted as calling for research in drugs, but that the 600 page full report calls only for better organization and more follow-up on existing programs which distribute these drugs indiscriminately to whoever asks for them. Curran's primary defense is that his critics have misinterpreted his intentions because they have not read the full report. The report, however, is not available to the public, although the opposition groups have made a concerted effort to obtain copies. Curran defends the report's limited distribution on the grounds that it is a "management report."

Though the full report may substantiate Curran's claims that his intentions were humane, the summary does not. With its fuzzy definition of the "special offender" and its "suggest consideration" of drug therapy and behavior modification, it has given academic support for prison authorities to establish a repressive prison.

THE SUMMARY, as a policy statement, will probably carry more weight than the full report. The governor and legislators are more likely to read the summary than the report. The prison administrators will implement a certain number of controls from the report but "treatment programs" will have begun. Vacaville prison in California, which has used drug experimentation and psychosurgery, shows that administrators will use academics' recommendations as the theoretical basis for an institution, and then go beyond what the academics suggest.

Governor Francis W. Sargent said last week that Massachusetts will not participate in a regional prison. He said, however, that, "special offenders need to be placed in smaller units so that individualized care and treatment can be used to bring about their eventual reintegration into society."

Curran's report, therefore, has already influenced the policy-makers to establish a program for "special offenders." Whether the program is regional or not is only a minor part of the debate. Curran did not even call for Massachusetts to join a regional prison--although Sargent, who evidently had not read the report carefully, did not seem to know it.

Curran has been reacting to criticism defensively rather than constructively. He has not released another statement to prevent people from reading the summary as a recommendation, nor has he made any attempts to forestall the repressive prison which could result from the study. Curran has rather been trying to protect his image. If Curran's intentions were as humane as he claims, would he react only with a personal defense?