Promoting Racial Profiling

A New York lawmaker’s plan to introduce legislation this month legitimizing racial profiling in an attempt to prevent terrorist attacks is more than just offensive. It’s counter-productive and dangerous, too.

NY Assemblyman Dov Hikind says law enforcement officers and other government agents should consider race when considering who to stop in security checks, just like they evaluate luggage, demeanor and itinerary.

“Since September 11, if you look at those who have been convicted of acts of terrorism, if you look at all the individuals that are facing trial, the reality is that they are of Middle Eastern or Southeast Asian background, Muslim young men. That is the reality,” he says. "I'm against the concept of profiling, but we're in a war on terror...We need to use the kind of tools we ordinarily won't use."

The arrest of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab on Christmas Day in a failed attempt to detonate a bomb aboard a Northwest Airlines flight has renewed calls for the use of racial profiling in security screening, but the suggestions is an overreaction to the threat of terrorism, and it isn't based on any proof that racial profiling works.

Abdulmutallab is Nigerian. Which sounds like a better plan? Stopping everyone who looks like they could be from Africa or following up on the intelligence we had pointing to Abdulmutallab’s plans? If we tried to stop terrorists using racial profiling, we’d end up with Skip Gates in the interrogation room and bomb makers in the exit row.

In this video, NY Assemblyman Hikind refers to Abdulmutallab as an example of why his policy is needed. Hofstra professor Hussein Rashid responds with the obvious point: Abdulmutalla doesn't "look" Muslim. "Does (Hikind) want to racially profile all brown people?" he asks.

Racial profiling doesn't work. It invades privacy, creates animosity and distracts law enforcement from the task at hand, which is using training and advanced tools to detect actual threats and signs of criminal intent.

More reasonable observers have called for the use of technology like full-body scans at airport in the wake of Abdulmutalla's failed attempt. Colin Starger wrote about this slippery slope here on change.org this week.

Abdulmutallab carried the explosives in his underwear, and Starger wonders if we'll soon be letting agents peek into our drawers. "Living with risk is part of democracy," he wrote. "To stay free and honor the Fourth Amendment, we may need to accept some danger."

There's a fine line when we discuss using surveillance to monitor either everyone boarding an airplane or a random selection of passengers. I agree with Colin that the potential for abuse exists, but flying is voluntary and certain measures can effectively mitigate the threat of terrorism. Metal detectors are minimally invasive and they are now universally accepted. Body scans might cross the line, or perhaps there's a way to protect against abuse while employing this technology to deter and prevent future attacks.

The debate over privacy rights and surveillance won't stop anytime soon, but racial profiling shouldn't even be involved in the conversation. No one should be a suspect because of their skin, and it’ll be a sad start to this decade if Hikind follows through on his plan to introduce this bill.

Photo by Brittany G