Thomas Ford examines how race, ethnicity and the push for quick justice in the US has affected domestic law enforcement and immigration Racial profiling is not new. It has been used in law enforcement for the last two decades and its social roots date back to the post-reconstruction era in American history. The topic of profiling people based on ethnic criteria was hotly debated in the media and in congress in 2000 and 2001. Most domestic issues in the US took a back seat to war and security after 11 September, but racial profiling has remained very much at the forefront. Racial profiling is stopping, searching or questioning a person or infringing on that person's civil rights based on his or her ethnicity, race or gender. This process is most commonly associated with young black males between 18 and 35. "Driving While Black" refers to the disproportionate number of traffic stops among black motorists on major highways and interstates. In the mid-1980s, the Drug Enforcement Administration intensified efforts to stop the transport of illicit drugs within the United States. According to the Institute on Race and Justice at Northeastern University, "police were trained to apply a profile that included evidence of concealment in the vehicle, indications of fast, point-to-point driving, as well as the age and race characteristics of the probable drivers. In some cases, the profiling technique was distorted, so that officers began targeting Black and Hispanic male drivers..." These unwarranted stops are what constitute the charges of racial profiling. As a law enforcement tool, profiling is meant to help officers of the law be more efficient and expedient in their delivery of justice. Before 11 September, the supporters and detractors of profiling were clearly separated by liberal and conservative lines. On 6 June 2001, Senator Russell Feingold introduced legislation that would prohibit racial profiling by federal law enforcement agencies. Section two of Senate Bill 989 exposes federal statistics on the use of profiling and their success. According to that section, "a 2001 Department of Justice report on citizen-police contacts in 1999 found that, although African-Americans and Hispanics were more likely to be stopped and searched, they were less likely to be in possession of contraband... Searches and seizures of African-American drivers yielded evidence only eight per cent of the time, searches and seizures of Hispanic drivers yielded evidence only 10 per cent of the time, and searches and seizures of white drivers yielded evidence 17 per cent of the time." Similar findings were made by a report based on US Customs Service activities in 1998. The survey found that though black women were less likely to be found in possession of contraband, they are nine times more likely to be searched and x-rayed. When the Feingold legislation was making its way through the Senate in 1999, Senator John Ashcroft was one of the senators on the Constitution Subcommittee of the US Senate Committee on the Judiciary. This committee held hearings on profiling and the correlation between traffic stops and race. In the pre-11 September US, President Bush and Attorney-General Ashcroft were vocal in their support of efforts to eliminate racial profiling. In a 28 February 2001 memorandum, Bush asked Ashcroft to "to review the use by federal law enforcement authorities of race as a factor in conducting stops, searches, and other investigative procedures... to develop methods or mechanisms to collect any relevant data from federal law enforcement agencies and work in co- operation with state and local law enforcement in order to assess the extent and nature of any such practices." This endorsement of collecting data on racial profiling was a surprise gesture, as Bush avoided issues of race and law enforcement during his campaign. Over 20 states have passed legislation condemning racial profiling. Many states and municipalities are collecting data on traffic stops and police contacts to evaluate their practices and to determine if profiling is being used unfairly. Not all police departments are accepting these new queries. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Rhode Island recently won a state Superior Court decision in its case against the police department of Providence. The ACLU charged the police department with not complying with the state's "Driving While Black" law, which established mandatory guidelines for collecting data on traffic stops and race in the state of Rhode Island. In other states, the ACLU has taken the responsibility of researching the issue upon its own shoulders. On 7 October, the organisation released a report denouncing the San Francisco police department's efforts to track and gather information on racial profiling. According to information the ACLU gathered by scouring public records, Blacks and Hispanics in San Francisco are 3.3 and 2.6 times respectively more likely to be stopped by law enforcement, yet officers are "significantly less likely to find any evidence of criminality in searches of African-Americans or Latinos". Nevertheless, progress is being made on the issue of racial profiling. Its prevalence has been made clear to many Americans through the data collected and statements denouncing the practice by law enforcement officials from the municipal to federal levels. As a civil rights issue, most Americans are becoming more adamant in their abhorrence for the use of racial profiling. In a survey conducted by Public Agenda in January 2002, 52 per cent of respondents said there was "no excuse" for law enforcement officials to give more scrutiny to blacks because they believe blacks are more likely to commit crime. However, support for profiling has strengthened after September 2001. One month after the attacks, on 24 October 2001, Jason L Riley commented in the Wall Street Journal, regarding the suspected terrorists, that "all were Arabic(sic), all were practitioners of Islam, and all come from... the Middle East ... Not 'some' of them, or a 'disproportionate number' ... All of them." Riley summarises the theory behind using racial profiling after 11 September and how profiling Arabs is different from profiling blacks. Since all of the purported Al-Qa'eda co- conspirators shared an identity and belief system, all Americans who share that same identity and belief system must be suspect. The climate of fear in the US has persuaded the communities that possibly suffer the most from profiling -- Blacks and Arabs -- to be more tolerant of profiling. The same poll conducted by Public Agenda revealed that blacks were two times more likely than whites to condemn racial profiling of Arabs, 35 per cent said there was "no excuse" for the profiling of Arabs. However, 59 per cent said it was "understandable, but wish it didn't happen". The Detroit Free Press conducted one of the first polls on racial profiling after September 2001. It found that 61 per cent of Arab-Americans thought that extra scrutiny of people with Middle Eastern features was justified. The Arab-American Institute Foundation found 54 per cent of its respondents believed the profiling was warranted. In January 2002, civil rights experts, lawyers, and activists testified before the House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary on the civil rights violations of the homeland security measures. The strongest criticism of the Bush administration and the Ashcroft Justice Department came from ranking committee member John Conyers. "Since 11 September, our nation has also engaged in a policy of institutionalised racial and ethnic profiling," Conyers said. "Not only has the administration elected to discriminate in granting visas to men from Middle Eastern countries, but it has targeted 5,000 Arab male visitors for intensive questioning. Surely, in 21st Century America, we can do better than saying that if you are Arab you are a suspect." Conyers is one of the two most senior members in the House of Representatives and also one of the leaders of the Congressional Black Caucus. More recently, on 20 November, Conyers sent a letter to Ashcroft in response to the "reported policy of monitoring the activities of all Iraqi- Americans". In the letter, Conyers labels the policy as "tantamount to racial and ethnic profiling" and an overreaction due to feelings of war. Conyers also questions the "policies of guilt by association and their contribution to national security". Social scientists often refer to class versus case probabilities. Under class probability, the only details known about the individuals or their behaviour is that they belong to the class from which the behaviour stems -- Muslims and Arabs spawn terrorism. Nothing is known of their specific instances or cases, but immigrants and visitors from Arab countries must be part of terror cells. Case probability is used when we know specific details that affect the outcome of an action. When applied to crime, the difference is between profiling and eye witness accounts. The debate on profiling has focused on the inherent violation of civil rights. Little effort has been shown by law enforcement or others to prove the success of profiling as a tool. In a March 2001 news conference on racial profiling, Attorney-General Ashcroft said, "I think every American has a right to look to law enforcement officials to protect their rights." When law enforcement agencies overstep the boundaries and impinge upon civil rights, "you lose the potential for the underlying trust that should support the administration of justice as a societal objective, not just as a law enforcement objective... We'll only have good law enforcement in the country to the extent that the people participate." American citizens cannot participate in a process from which they are excluded by their ethnicity and its profile.
