Does terrorism justify racial profiling?

Stephen J. Ellmann is an attorney in New York City, and his New York Law School Review presented a very good point.  He wondered if terrorism justified racial profiling.  I feel that stereotyping will happen whether it is justified or not.  He stated that, “people of every race should be free to walk in every neighborhood of the country without being quizzed by the police about their reasons for being there- even if all of the residents of the neighborhood are of another race”.  I also argue this to be true.  We were all granted access to the land of the United States by being a citizen, therefore nothing should stop us or scare us from walking in areas that are not coveted by our same race.  He also mentioned that there are other types of profiling in addition to race such as religion and gender, although these are not as common, which I think is a great point to make.

He knows that it is his responsibility as a citizen and an attorney to ponder if what we have believed and followed as laws from the Constitution are really right and justifiable.  I believe that most laws are meant to stay the same over time, but some need to be monitored and changed as the world and society changes.  He said that “stereotypes sometimes have some truth to them; what stereotypes do not have, under our law, is a legitimate bearing on the question of how government should treat an individual person, whatever group he or she belongs to”.  I mentioned this in an earlier blog- the government needs to specifically state that immigrants also have these same rights.  I think it is interesting that we do not go after white people that commit crimes in the United States as much as we would discriminate people of other races after someone from their group committed a crime.  This really bothers me because I am a firm advocate of people being treated equally.

Survey Says…

Deborah Schildkraut conducted a survey that included several questions related to public opinion of racial profiling before and after the September 11^th attacks.  In this blog entry I would like to list the questions and state my opinions on why I believe that those people answered the way that they did.

Question: It has been reported that some police officers stop motorists of certain racial or ethnic groups because the officers believe that these groups are more likely than others to commit certain types of crime.  This practice is known as racial profiling.  Do you approve or disapprove of racial profiling by police?

Approve: 23%

Disapprove: 77%

Question: Since 9/11, some law enforcement agencies have stopped and searched people who are Arab or of Middle Eastern decent to see if they may be involved in potential terrorist activities.  Do you approve or disapprove of this kind of profiling?

Approve: 66%

Disapprove: 34%

I think that it is ridiculous that 23% of people could approve of this notion.  Not only is it completely discriminatory, but it is unethical.  Stopping only a certain race of people, or mostly a certain race, will let a lot of other groups not abide by the traffic laws, so it will cause just as many problems.  When comparing these two questions, you can see that approval of racial profiling after 9/11 increased 43%.  I think that people believe racial profiling after 9/11 is okay because it is only used to protect against terrorism.  However, as I have stated in a previous blog entry, that is not the case.

Question: If there were another terrorist attack in the US with Arab or Middle Eastern suspects, would you support or oppose allowing the government to hold Arabs who are US citizens in camps until it can be determined whether they have links to terrorist organizations?

Approve: 29.5%

Disapprove: 70.5%

Question: If there were another terrorist attack in the US with Arab or Middle Eastern suspects, would you support or oppose allowing the government to hold Arabs immigrants in camps until it can be determined whether they have links to terrorist organizations?

Approve: 34%

Disapprove: 66%

These two questions are exactly the same except that “Arabs immigrants” replaces “Arabs that are US citizens” in the second question.  There was a 4.5% increase in the support for racial profiling when using the word “immigrants” instead of “US citizens”.  I think that is a very interesting point to make, because it shows that people do view Arabs differently by thinking that they do not have the same rights as all American citizens.  This survey also displays that the only scenario where the majority approves of racial profiling is when law enforcement can search anyone that looks Middle Eastern.

 

–> picture from http://www.bailoutpeople.org/gates.shtml

USA Patriot Act

According to the American- Arab Anti- Discrimination Committee, there was quadruple the number of hate crimes after the attacks.  Attorney General John Ashcroft had set out to end racial profiling- then came September 11^th.  “Afterward, the administration approved a series of homeland security measures that singled out Arab immigrants, including fingerprinting and pursuing deportation orders, even for those with no connection to terrorism.  Some critics believe such measures helped fuel prejudice against Arab Americans” (After, 2003).  I find it amusing that this individual was so determined to end racial profiling in the United States, but his ideals completely changed after September 11^th.  I argue that the attacks should have made him want to get out there and inform people about how wrong racial profiling is, instead of supporting it.  I think that this could have made a huge difference on how Arabs were perceived in America after September 11^th because he is such an important individual.  Ashcroft also traveled across the country to administer support for the USA Patriot Act, which reduced the restrictions that authorities had in regards to search and seizure.  The USA Patriot Act is an acronym for Uniting (and) Strengthening America (by) Providing Appropriate Tools Required (to) Intercept (and) Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001.  This law was passed by George W. Bush on October 26, 2001.  President Bush also set out guidelines to avoid racial profiling, but nothing was made law or set in stone, therefore it did not have to be followed.  This makes me wonder if he really wanted to end racial profiling, or if he just knew that he should release a statement against it to make some people happy, because he also passed the USA Patriot Act which basically enforces racial profiling.  Since President Bush didn’t really do anything to end racial profiling, the House of Representatives and Senate released the End Racial Profiling Act which was enforced to end all types of profiling.  This Act sparked a lot of attention from activist groups and helped them to advocate for their beliefs.

Search and Seizure

In a study published by the Justice Department, the majority of Arab Americans said that they are afraid of racial profiling more than being involved in a hate crime.  I find it surprising that they would rather be involved in a crime, which could involve anything from them getting verbal abuse to getting shot, than being discriminated by their race.  In a recent study, “66% of Americans said it would be acceptable for law enforcement officials to stop and search anyone who looked Middle Eastern in order to prevent another attack” (Schildkraut).  This is a very stereotypical thing to practice, and it is wrong in every aspect of what we call freedom.  I contemplate that most Americans participate and accept racial profiling because they think that it will help end terrorism and protect their friends and family, whereas it actually could promote it even more.  I argue that when minority groups are discriminated against, it just fuels their desire to want to rebel against the government.  Before anyone acts on racial profiling, they should put themselves in the others’ shoes, and see how they would feel if they were getting judged because of association.  Haven’t white American’s committed acts of terrorism too?  What if our bags were checked just because someone that was white committed a crime?  There should be no difference in what the government does if an American or Arab-American commits a crime.

Shildkraut also found that “31% of Americans said that they would support putting Arab-Americans in camps until their innocence could be determined”.  SERIOUSLY??  How could you possibly believe that could the right thing to do?  That is very similar to putting Jews in concentration camps- i thought that everyone knew that was wrong!  Not only is that flat out rude, it completely takes away all of their freedoms.  They live here in the United States for the same reason that we all do- and that is because it is supposedly the land of the free.  Shouldn’t we promote freedom for all people if we live in this great nation, instead of try to limit it for certain individuals?

Social Identity

I believe that the main boundary between how the United States acts now and ending racial profiling is specifically defining what it takes to be American.  But along with that, the government needs to strictly enforce its definition and mainly make sure that it is followed.  The government will need to make it clear to all citizens that everyone has the same rights and responsibilities no matter where they originally came from, instead of ordering national security to search different races more critically.  Activist organizations should also do plenty of advertising to make sure that everyone is clear on those concepts.

Social identity has to do with the way that people define themselves (race, gender, sexuality, nationality, origin, etc.).  Many Americans believe in ethnoculturism, which means that they think that all Americans should speak English, be white, and have European ancestry.  People who believe in ethnoculturism are most likely very supportive of profiling.  An example of this is the Ku Klux Klan.  The Ku Klux Klan promotes white supremacy, anti-immigration, and white nationalism.  There are several other groups that promote specific traits as the guidelines to being American.

Deborah Schildkraut stated that, “Some Americans think that people of Middle Eastern or Arab descent should give up more of their liberties than the rest of us”.  I argue that the people that will need the most convincing on that subject are conservatives.  They agree that the government should have less power, yet most do not think that Arab-Americans are granted the same rights as the dominant white Americans.  Democrats and liberals oppose racial profiling more often than republicans and conservatives.  Another interesting fact in a survey is that “black respondents are less supportive of traditional and 9/11 profiling than white respondents” (Schildkraut).  Additionally, “black, Asian, and Latino respondents are less likely than white respondents to support allowing searches of people who look Middle Eastern” (Schildraut).  I think that these two statements show that generally, white people think that they should have more rights than minority groups, and they need to be told that this is not the case.  I think that many of them know that, but refuse to believe that Arab-Americans are equal to them, because they don’t look like the majority of the people in this country.

 

–> picture from http://restorefairness.org/tag/end-racial-profiling-act/

War on Terrorism

“Essentially, a war against terrorism is a war for civil liberties.  If we start giving up rights, then we are simply giving up our own way of life.” –Timothy Edgar

I believe that this is a very powerful quote, for many reasons.  It really sums up my project, in that it shows how interconnected terrorism and civil liberties are.  I argue that terrorism causes people to be more separated into their communities rather than accepting of others.  People become afraid and scared of what could happen to them, and therefore feel more comfortable connecting with their own race.  However, I think that we should all come together so that we can be united and work towards an end to terrorism.

In 2002, there was a 1,500% increase in discrimination against Muslims.  This is a very alarming statistic to me.  That is an unbelievably huge percentage!  Additionally, six Arab American pilots were dismissed without cause.  This is just one example of the many ways that Arabs were treated unfairly because they were feared by other Americans.  There were many cases of increased searches of homes and property, and even evacuation from communities.  This is terribly saddening to me because they do not deserve to be put through that kind of treatment, just because they are associated by race to someone that committed a terrorist act in the past.

Edgar also stated, “If we start giving up rights like the right to free speech, counsel, freedom of religion, right to privacy, then we are simply giving up our way of life”.  An individual’s ideals about what being American means typically fuels their opinions towards racial profiling.  If an individual thinks that being American means you have to be born here, white, and Christian, then they will probably discriminate against everyone that is not in that group.  On the other hand, activists are driven by their beliefs about American identity.  Sadly, people tend to think that immigrants do not have the same rights as people that were born in the United States.  How others explain what being an American citizen means has a great effect on their views toward several issues.

Introduction to Racial Profiling

As I am sitting here in the Science and Engineering Library, trying to put my thoughts together to form a well-though-out blog entry, I wonder how differently I would feel about the government if I was not a White European female.  Maybe my opinions would be the same, maybe not.  It would probably depend on what race, gender, class and nationality I was.  Another determining factor would be how the government has affected the outlook on my race and the problems, if any, that we have incurred from racial profiling.  Merriam Webster defines racial profiling as “the act of suspecting or targeting a person on the basis of observed characteristics or behavior”.
Racial profiling does not benefit anyone and is not a good tactic to end terrorism whatsoever.  Not every threat to the United States is of a different origin.  Why do people think White people can’t harm our country?  Terrorists are not just immigrants from other countries; they can recruit people from the United States as well.  Also, a lot of times people can’t differentiate between different races when taking part in hate crimes.  Shouldn’t we go after people because of their risk to our nation, not because of their race?  Does this mean that all of the one million Middle Easterners in America should be contemplated for terrorism? I argue that we should go after individuals that are a threat to the people of the United States, not minority groups.  It is much more beneficial and easier to go after individuals because of their out-of-the-ordinary behavior rather than their profile.

By participating in racial profiling, we are changing the way the government works.  You are not only influencing the rights of people of different ethnicity as you, but yours as well.  Everyone is at risk by the governments’ actions even if they seem to only apply to that specific community.  The government operates on a system of checks and balances, therefore what haunts one group will ultimately haunt your community as well.  If the government enacts policies that are prejudice towards a specific group, don’t you think that they would have the same tendency to do it to your race too?  Now that is surely something to think about.

 

–> picture from http://afortmadeofbooks.blogspot.com/2010/12/political-stupidity.html