A New Look at Racial Profiling
In our nation today, racial profiling is generally understood to be improper…even illegal. While this remains true in regards to a white police officer stopping a black motorist for DWB (Driving While Black), the concept seems to be gaining acceptance when it comes to the narrow focus of profiling Arabs at airports. After the attacks of 9/11/2001, which were obviously perpetrated by men from the Middle East, many U.S. citizens have become more aware of racial profiling as it relates to security issues. The question seems to be: Is it reasonable (or acceptable) to target people who appear to be Arab since they are perceived to be the people that hate Americans and are willing to die to make their point? I am unaware of any blond-haired, blue-eyed Caucasians that have hijacked airplanes to carry out suicide attacks against the United States. That being the case does that make this type of limited racial or ethnic profiling acceptable?
I would like to emphasize at the outset that the profiling addressed in this essay is of a relatively limited nature…focusing on security measures at airports or any other areas of the transportation industry that may be a potential target of terrorists. In this regard, here are two facts to consider. First: Out of the 19 hijackers on the planes on 9/11/2001, all 19 were Arabs. Second: Although most Arabs are not terrorists, it does appear that most terrorists are Arabs.
Lest we think that primarily white Americans are proponents of this radical thinking, note the results from a Gallup Poll that was published in The Boston Globe: 71% of black respondents said they would favor more intensive security checks for Arabs, including those who are U.S. citizens, before they boarded planes; 57% of whites said they would favor such a policy; and 63% of other nonwhites said they, too, would favor it. So it would appear from this poll, as well as others, that a clear majority of the population are definitely in favor of profiling Arabs as a means of increasing National Security.
However, this is America…and in America we do not accept the profiling of an entire group of our citizens…racially, ethnically, or otherwise. If you think that is true, you would be mistaken. I am prepared to highlight two specific areas in which racial profiling not only exists in the United States…but also is beneficial and, in one case, backed by the Supreme Court.
Roy Hazelwood exemplifies the first area. Who is Roy Hazelwood? He is a member of the FBI’s Investigative Support Unit (formerly Behavioral Sciences) who has studied deviant crime perpetrated by serial sex offender killers. His studies have found that, “Every single sexual deviation is overwhelmingly dominated by white males. And most sexually related ritualistic crimes are committed by white males.” (Hazelwood, Michaud, 2001) Other studies have confirmed that conclusion: “The typical serial killer is male (88%), between the ages of 25-35, and white (85%). The majority of time he will kill white victims. 76% of all serial killers live in the United States.” (Apsche, J.,1993). These statistics are beyond debate, and are therefore used in FBI (as well as other law enforcement agency) investigations to profile potential suspects. It would be completely unreasonable, not to mention dangerous, to ignore established patterns and target say…a 50 year old black woman, as the suspect in a serial killing. More often than not…in fact 85% of the time…the white guy did it, so racial profiling is necessary and beneficial in attempting to solve these crimes.
Another area that uses a form of racial profiling may come as a surprise to most: affirmative action. Racial profiling is considered offensive on its face because it is considered to be discrimination. But take the time to think seriously about these comments by Michael Kinsley: “You can believe (as I do) that affirmative action is often a justifiable form of discrimination, but you cannot sensibly believe that it isn’t discrimination at all. Racial profiling and affirmative action are analytically the same thing. When cops stop black drivers or companies make extra efforts to hire black employees, they are both giving certain individuals special treatment based on racial generalizations. The only difference is that in one case the special treatment is something bad and in the other it’s something good.” (Slate Magazine, 2001)
In the case of affirmative action, the Supreme Court decided that racial classifications that benefited underrepresented minorities were to only be upheld if necessary and if they promote a compelling governmental purpose. (Richmond v. JA Croson Co.) Several decisions of the court were based on the fact that the policies under review were narrowly tailored (Grutter v.Bollinger, 2003) to achieve a compelling interest. Since affirmative action itself is a legal exception to the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, I believe the Supreme Court has set the precedent to justify narrowly tailored selective searches at airports (or other high security areas) based on race, since such actions can indeed be considered “necessary” and “promote a compelling governmental purpose” (National Security).
Based on these observations, and the reality of the times in which we live, I would submit that the United States should give thought to implementing security measures (featuring ethnic profiling) similar to those used by Israel’s El Al airline. Staff scrutinize the passengers’ names, dividing them into low-risk (Israeli or foreign Jews), medium risk (non-Jewish foreigners), and extremely high-risk travelers (anyone with an Arabic name). These people are automatically taken into a room for body and baggage checks and lengthy interrogation. Although this policy may seem intrusive, the facts speak for themselves…despite being the highest priority target of Arab extremists, Israel has not had a single airline hijacking in over 37 years.
The logistical problems that would be inherent with applying El Al style security at U.S. airports are self-evident. There are a relatively insignificant total number of flights in the air over Israel on any given day compared to this country. However, I do believe that some movement toward that goal should be immediate, before it is too late.
In light of the foregoing, I propose that it is in the best interests of the United States to not allow the negative perception of the term “racial profiling” to impact the decision making process when it affects national security. This country already has a lengthy history that shows very clearly that national interests always trump personal rights or freedoms. In this case it actually seems like the right decision.
Bibliography
Apsche, J. Probing the mind of a serial killer. International information Associates, 1993Hazelwood, Roy, and Stephen G. Michaud. Dark Dreams: Sexual Violence, Homicide, and the Criminal Mind. New York: St Martins Press, 2001 (Grutter v.Bollinger, 2003) Kinsley, Michael. “Racial Profiling at the Airport” Slate Magazine Sept. 28, 2001(Richmond v. JA Croson Co.)
