- by June Shin
Racial profiling is typically defined as “the police use of race as the sole basis for initiating law enforcement activity.” Meehan and Ponder also state that the practice of racial profiling is “inextricably tied not only to race, but to officers’ conceptions of place, of what should typically occur in an area and who belongs, as well as where they belong.” To determine individuals are suspicious solely on the basis of their race is a clear violation of the Fourth Amendment, which protects individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures, and despite those who are less convinced that racial profiling indeed exists, numerous case studies, such as Choi v. Gaston and Whren vs. United States, and countless personal experiences (as can be seen on ABC News Prime Time Live in 1996 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3RhXU-2EJDE and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eV2tCgkACRQ&feature=related) indicate that racial profiling is embedded in the law and comes in many forms. However, the problem of racial profiling far extends that of its violation of the Fourth Amendment. Once racial profiling becomes justified and therefore legitimized, racial profiling no longer becomes a practice carried out solely by the police, but also by the general public. Meehan and Ponder focus on the racial profiling conducted on African American drivers, but I would like to focus on the introduction of a different example of racial profiling, by both law enforcement agencies and the general public, that was introduced post September 11, 2001.
Prior to September 11, all forms of racial profiling were generally strongly opposed by the public and were deemed “inefficient, ineffective, and unfair” (Volpp 562). However, after the foreign terrorists threatened the safety of this country, the frail construction of national identity that included all races became all so apparent. What once was deemed futile and unjust now became what non-Middle Eastern Americans believed was the essence of keeping this country protected and terrorist-free. The new form of racial profiling permitted by the government includes a more general investigation of people solely based upon “perceptions of their racial, religious, or ethnic identity” (Volpp 564). Post September 11 the constitutionality of racial profiling changed, creating shifts away from U.S. Fourth Amendment protections of individual against abuse of criminal procedure. These shifts are a product of government portrayal of racial profiling as a mechanism in the “war on terrorism,” which led to the recognition of a national identity and solidarity excluding people of “Middle Eastern, Arab, or Muslim” origins or appearance.
Similar to the way the government justifies pulling over and stopping and frisking more African Americans than whites on the road by stating it is a mechanism to fight the “war on drugs,” the government justifies pulling aside people of “Middle Eastern, Arab, or Muslim” people by stating it is a mechanism to fight the “war on terror.” However, we need to see through these justifications of racial profiling and identify the dire effects that come with it.
Sources:
Meehan and Ponder. “Race and Place: The Ecology of Racial Profiling African American Motorists.” Reader.
Volpp, Leti. The Citizen and the Terrorist, 23 Immigration and Nationality Law Review 561 (2002)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3RhXU-2EJDE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eV2tCgkACRQ&feature=related
https://www.aclu.org/racial-justice/driving-while-black-racial-profiling-our-nations-highways
Interesting post June! I can’t agree more with you that once racial profiling becomes legitimized, this leads to a change in public opinion. I have witnessed personally since September 11th, a clear change in my families approach to Middle East persons as well as in public opinion. I can say that I have never been pulled aside at an airport for extensive screening, however I can affirm that I have witnessed people of color being pulled aside. It’s a sad reality, and does cause dire effects. What frustrates me particularly is that we claim a “War on Terrorism,” however those that we judge and fret from are more times then not citizens of our country. The question then becomes, are we fighting a “War on Middle East People?” If not, it seems that way.
ReplyDeleteThank you for sharing this, June. I do agree that the racial profiling that was introduced as a result of the 9/11 attacks is unfair and should not be allowed. I also believe that it is much worse than the profiling experienced by African American drivers and other minorities. I believe the crimes used to profile against those other minorities, though still unfair, could be statistically believed based on past crimes committed. These crimes and other generalizations could be due to prevailing socioeconomic problems for those races, so it's no single individual's fault for either turning to crime or not. Point is, profiling for them kind of has a historical basis, whereas the racial profiling that emerged after 9/11 has little-to-no historical basis aside from a single, though very tragic, incident. The actions of a handful condemned millions and I believe that is not fair in any sense. -Joe Lugue
ReplyDeleteThank you for the post, June. I found this post very interesting, because I hadn't really considered the major aspects of post 9/11 profiling, compared to other forms before it. I think it's definitely important to keep awareness of that fact high, and while this form may be worse than the type of profiling demonstrated in stop and frisk searches, I consider both to be socially dangerous. I also liked your comment that once a form of profiling is legitimized by the police, it becomes legitimized in the public eye. I think this is accurate, and it speaks volumes about us as a society, and our relationship with police intervention and surveillance.
ReplyDelete- Atreyue
I think that you make an important connection between racial profiling and the war on terror. This elucidates how discriminatory practices derived from social/cultural views and prejudices can become institutionalized and acted upon politically. You make a good point with regard to how institutionalized racial profiling contributes public perceptions. In the case of the war on terror, the media played a crucial role in perpetuating images of ‘criminals/terrorist’, which fuelled racial discrimination both politically and socially, down to a level of interpersonal relations.
ReplyDeleteMadeleine McGlade
June, great post! I agree with your message. Racial profiling soon became a response to an event, a reaction to a phenomenon, or an effect to a cause. Using your post as an analogy, racial profiling on the African American population is an effect to the reality that African Americans are usually the suspects of drug trafficking, gang congregation in ghettos, prison-inmates, and other illegal-related activities. Due to these situations, there's an established social norm that the public expresses a deep sense of suspicion toward the people of color because they are the ones who are causing a lot of trouble.
ReplyDelete-Jiajun (Michael) Huang.
It’s easy to feel morally superior to the police on issues like racial profiling. My knee-jerk reaction (and the most politically correct reaction, of course) is to immediately condemn the police for violation of human rights and call for justice. I certainly would never commit such an abominable offence if faced with the same situation. Or would I? When I dig deep into my soul and honestly assess how I would react in situations where my life may be threatened, I can’t say that I wouldn’t do the same. “There is nothing more painful to me at this stage in my life than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery. Then look around and see somebody white and feel relieved.” Those words were said by Jesse Jackson. Juan Williams said, “…when I get on the plane, I’ve got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous.” Why would two prominent black, liberal men say such things?
DeleteJESSE RYCKMAN
Great Job highlighting the fact that post 9/11, muslim looking individuals are subject to a lot unjustified scrutiny. Since 9/11, Middle Easterners, Arabs, Muslims, and anyone suspected to be from an Islamic country is identified as a terrorist and dis-identified as a citizen in our country. Racial profiling is rooted in exclusion, specifically the exclusion of “them” from “us”. The failure to identify “them” as one of “us” is tarnishing their sense of national identity and preventing them from enjoying their citizenship, or at least their time, in America. On the other hand, with a utilitarian objective in mind, it is much easier to accept the criminal procedural abuse of “Muslim looking” people, than it is to accept our country's fate as a vulnerable and accessible target of terrorism. There is a fine line between proactively policing and over-policing.
ReplyDeleteTiarra Pittman
June, I really liked your blog post! One topic I never seem to tire of is how social markers (gender/race etc.) often govern our interpretation of someone, even if that individual (actually, especially when that individual) is a stranger. It is absolutely true that racial profiling is in clear violation of our Fourth Amendment rights, so why do administrative bodies that are supposedly protecting citizens from criminal acts engage in behavior that is not only criminal but actually producing criminal activity amongst certain racial groups? I don’t have the answer to this, but it is certainly an interesting question to ponder.
ReplyDeleteYour post also reminded me of what we learned in class this week: how much our character influences the opinions of front-line workers and their willingness to aid us as a citizen and/or client. One poignant line from your post was, “once racial profiling becomes justified and therefore legitimized, racial profiling no longer becomes a practice carried out solely by the police, but also by the general public”. I completely agree. - Chelsea Goddard
I enjoyed reading your post since the topic is so controversial still. It's fascinating and unfortunate that the government has allowed for the term racial profiling to be legally used to apprehend people for "national security". In no way should government or any institution be justified in taking someone in based on race. There needs to be stronger regulation on this topic in order to guarantee people protection against such violations of the Fourth Amendment,
ReplyDeleteIt seems to be a common theme how the government can allow such violations as this to grow out of hand. Just as in previous weeks with private policing growing immensely and taking away citizen's rights to resist, we have another instance of citizen's right being taken away and leaving them without anywhere to turn for help. This needs to be addressed before our rights as citizens become further deprecated.
-Dylan Tong
Racial Profiling as always been used to identity those who aren't white, saying they don't belong in the U.S. because they are suspicious. In New York and other places, this is used to push African Americans out in the spirit of crime suppression. After 9/11, racial profiling was used to pick out people to detain in relation to the bombings.
ReplyDeleteWe must be very weary of using someone's race as a legitimate reason to stop and detain someone. Not so long ago, this was used to detain the Japanese people during World War II. They were sent to race tracks because the government thought that they were a treat to national security and it was a necessity that they detain them.
In matters of domestic law enforcement and international wars, racial profiling should not be looked as a compelling reason to stop someone.
Tina Truong
This post brings up an incredibly important discussion that, as you point out, begins with the profiling of minority races such as African-Americans as a group more likely to commit crime, but which has developed into a political issue as the vocabulary advanced from "crime" to "terrorism". However, the post 9/11 persecution of Muslim Americans differs in one key aspect--the profiling that occurs is based on religion, not race. Because most people do not stop to make this distinction, profiling of those that look more distinctly of Middle Eastern descent is far more prevalent--this creates an ineffective system of profiling, as innocent people are scrutinized due to their name or choice of dress while those that are guilty move under the radar if their skin is fair enough. This issue is an important reminder that profiling does not work as an effective means of policing, because the chance of a guilty person matching a known profile is highly unlikely--it is far more important to look at behavioral characteristics than physical ones to effectively police proactively.
ReplyDeleteJust realized I didn't put my name under the post. - Mandeep Thind
DeleteI don't agree with the idea that a disproportionate amount of stops for african american Oakland residents, given the disproportionate amount of crime committed by their demographic. "African Americans comprise less than one-third of Oakland's residents, yet they are over-represented in crime statistics, and most homicides occur in African-American neighborhoods" (2006 Homicide Report). While maintaining racial sensitivity is important, Figueroa made it clear that the key to crime prevention is understanding both the communities you are policing, and understanding the crimes being committed. At what point is it not acceptable to make policing decisions based on information gathered about crime trends? Is it unacceptable to stop someone fitting a perpetrators description for having a distinguishable tattoo? It seems logical to me to make decisions based on evidence gathered and trends and patterns learned through this information.
ReplyDeleteAtli Thorkelsson