The Anti Police-Terror Project (APTP) has issued a strong rejection of Northeastern University’s recent proposal to create a private police force in East Oakland, calling it a dangerous and misguided initiative. APTP argues that this plan represents another instance of militarized occupation of Black and Brown communities, disguised as a measure for “safety,” while disregarding the voices and needs of the residents it will impact.
One of the primary concerns raised by APTP is the lack of transparency regarding the hiring of non-sworn security officers and former police officers. In a city like Oakland, where the police department is still under federal oversight due to a history of violence and misconduct, the establishment of a private police force without robust accountability measures poses serious risks. APTP warns that this new force could operate with increased impunity, leading to heightened incidents of racial profiling, assaults, and brutality against community members.
APTP argues that if Northeastern University genuinely aimed to enhance safety in East Oakland, it would not allocate $20 million to funding a police presence. Instead, the organization advocates for investments in community-centered solutions that have been proven to improve safety, such as affordable housing, mental health services, job training programs, grocery stores, and support for unhoused individuals. According to APTP, true safety is rooted in stable housing, employment opportunities, and access to healthcare, rather than the presence of armed officers on the streets.
Despite claims from Northeastern University that community input will be part of the planning process, APTP asserts that such engagement is occurring too late. They question is whether the university made genuine efforts to consult East Oakland residents about their safety concerns and needs. Did they seek feedback on the community’s priorities, such as affordable housing or job opportunities? APTP argues that the university instead brought a policing plan from Boston—a city with its own legacy of racial issues and aggressive law enforcement—without regard for the specific needs of East Oakland.
Moreover, APTP highlights the troubling implications of this proposal for the legacy of Mills College, a historic institution that has served as a beacon for Black and Brown women, including influential leaders like Congresswoman-elect Lateefah Simon. Transforming this space into a campus with an armed security force, APTP contends, is a betrayal of the values Mills College has represented—empowerment and opportunity rather than oppression.
“This is a violent and dangerous power grab by Northeastern University,” stated Cat Brooks, Co-founder of APTP. “We will not stand by as an institution attempts to turn East Oakland into a police state. If they want to support our community, they need to invest in housing, jobs, and resources—not in another occupying force that terrorizes families.”
APTP emphasizes that data consistently shows that increased police presence does not correlate with enhanced safety. They view Northeastern’s proposal as a knee-jerk reaction that diverts critical funding into a system that has repeatedly failed communities, especially at a time when Oakland is facing a significant budget deficit of $90 million.
In light of these concerns, the Anti Police-Terror Project is calling for Northeastern University to immediately abandon its plan for a private police force and instead redirect those funds toward solutions that address the root causes of violence and instability in East Oakland. APTP advocates for a shift in focus from punitive measures to community investment, emphasizing that real safety comes from empowering residents, not policing them.
Anti Police-Terror Project
Who?
If you lived in Oakland you wouldn’t ask that question. Folks are blowing up our NextDoor feed there.
Well I don’t live in Oakland, and I used to love Oakland, until I returned after the pandemic and on the first day back in broad daylight someone whack job from the nearby meth camp, that used to be a public memorial park came into the bike lane with their beat-up, 100% opaque window car and literally ‘scraped’ my bicycle and then parked across the bike lane to block me. Oh, hell no. I biked the (***) backwards down Mandela Pkwy and ditched down an alley. Anyone know how vulnerable one feels on a bike, now add in an environment that became no one around but the meth heads and one is attacking you for the intent of . . . ? Killing white-appearing cyclists in broad daylight???
It took four tries to report the attack, because Oakland Police only take felony reports in person, and three of the times I went all available officers were at a shooting. So who is terrorizing who, DG ? Oakland has become a (***) city, and I do my best to avoid it now.
Alan – not sure your observations square with reality.
For instance, while there was a spike in murder rates in Oakland in the early 2020s, it is nothing compared to the peak in the 80s and 90s.
The 1980s and 1990s were characterized by a surge in crime across many U.S. cities, including Oakland. This period saw high rates of violent crime, largely driven by the crack cocaine epidemic, gang violence, and economic challenges.
During the late 1980s and early 1990s, Oakland experienced some of its highest murder rates. For instance, in 1992, Oakland recorded over 160 homicides, reflecting the broader national trend of rising violent crime.
Over the past two decades, Oakland, like many other cities, has seen a general decline in crime rates, including homicides.
In recent years, Oakland’s murder rates have generally been lower than the peaks of the 1980s and 1990s. For example, in the 2010s and early 2020s, annual homicides have often been below 100, although there are fluctuations year-to-year.
I don’t believe you. I don’t believe your stats.
I’ll tell you why. (And no I’m not talking about homicides, which are often people or gangs who know each other, a tragic exception example being Jen Angel in Oakland, who ironically was like you, a crazed decarceration advocate and her family and friends begged that her killer not be jailed [he was sentenced to seven years]). Anyway, back to why. When I tried to report the crime, I was told I had to wait at my house for an officer to arrive. I tried to go by a police station but they won’t do it there!!! So I had to wait at Starbucks, which were sometimes not open due to staffing shortages. Like all day, because all the cops were at a ‘shooting’ each time. They wouldn’t put me in a queue, even after going to Oakland four times. I couldn’t report the crime because it was a felony and they won’t accept felony’s online. When on the fourth day I told my story a supervisor finally made an exception to their stupid moronic rules and sent a cop to meet me. The cop said if I ever spot the car to call in immediately. I biked over the to the meth camp and there it was. I then spent 2.5 hours on hold trying to call it in. I reported it, but I returned to the meth camp a couple of times over the next few weeks and it was still there – so they clearly did nothing about it.
So – making reporting crimes almost impossible, and nothing being done, both tactics that make it impossible or frustrating as hell to report – a FELONY!!! So what do you think that does to crime statistics when people just give the *** up on even trying, huh DG ???!!!?
I had a similarly frustrating experience in San Francisco when a guy in a van chased me for 1/2 mile for yelling at him for blocking the bike lane, then confronted me and shoved me, almost knocking me over. I tried to report it to officers, but they said I had to go to a police station. I tried to call it in and report it online to no avail. I should have pursued it and I’m still mad at myself for not doing so, but they said I had to come back to San Francisco and report it IN PERSON without an appointment, and that easily sounded like a whole day. So again a crime not reported.
And that’s just me, and I’m stubborn as hell. Clearly the mission here is to make it as hard as possible to report crime in the twin sh*thole cities of San Francisco and Oakland, so their crime statistics remain massively artificially low so that decarceration-progressive activists can lie to all of us on their blogs?
I think we’ve had this conversation before, but the bottom is there are some stats that are not sensitive to reporting.
Two examples – one of which I used – murder – we have a fairly good idea of the number of murders within a fairly small margin of error. Another good metric is vehicle theft. Because people (generally) have insurance, people have to report the theft to their insurance company (if for no reason other than they don’t want to pay for a car that’s no longer there). Then we can track other crimes by looking at the trends. That gives us a fairly good idea and it’s why we generally know that crime peaked around 1992 and dropped off fairly precipitously until 2019 or 2020 when it rose sharply during the pandemic and appears to have started falling again post pandemic.