Since the terrorists attacks of September the eleventh security in American airports has drastically increased. While numerous safety measures have been taken to prevent terrorists’ actions, some law enforcement officers have used safety measures that are unjust and unconstitutional. Because the highjackers of September the eleventh were all of Middle Eastern descent, Middle Easterners have been racially profiled in American airports. This was the topic of the debate that I participated in for my political science class. Several class mates and I presented the con side of racial profiling in American airports.
I was responsible for the civil rights and humanitarian aspect of racial profiling at American airports. Civil rights, according to Webster’s Dictionary, are the rights a nation’s inhabitants enjoy by law. In the United States, civil rights are thought of as those rights granted in the Constitution. Humanitarianism, according to Webster’s Dictionary, is the practice of humane treatment to one another. Humanitarianism is the belief that everyone is a human being and should be treated with respect and dignity. Although the definitions for these words are different, they essentially have the same underlying meaning. Every human being is the same and should not be treated any different because of a difference in gender, race, ethnicity, physical features. With the terrorist threats in today’s society, it is mandatory for numerous safety precautions and security screenings, especially in airports. While it may be human nature, since the terrorist attacks, to fear Middle Easterners it is inhumane and against their civil rights to racially profile them. Americans should realize that racial profiling is wrong because of the injustices done to African Americans mainly before the 1970’s. According to David Harris in an online journal:
September the eleventh dramatically recast the issue of racial profiling. Suddenly, racial profiling was not a discredited law enforcement tactic that alienated and injured citizens while it did little to combat crime and drugs; instead, it became a vital tool to assure national security, especially in airports. The public discussion regarding the targets of profiling changed too – from African Americans, Latinos, and other minorities suspected of domestic crime, especially drug crime, to Arab Americans, Muslims, and others of Middle Eastern origin, who looked like the suicidal hijackers of September eleventh. (Harris 3)
Middle Easterners, nor should anyone else, have to endure the hardships African Americans endured before integration. Many Americans realize this and have now started organizations and are trying to pass legislation to prevent racial profiling at American airports.
To combat racial profiling the Department of Homeland Security has established the Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties. In a review of the office, Daniel Sutherland states, “We have established an Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties (CRCL) to ensure that we protect both our physical safety and our American ideals” (Sutherland). This office is more concerned with developing policies to protect and enhance civil liberties rather than ensuring federally funded activities are carried out, like a majority of other civil rights offices in government. The office does such things as create an officer for civil rights and civil liberties, talk with trainees at the federal law enforcement training center, and provide e-learning work groups and other multimedia that discusses the wrongs of racial profiling. While this is one group against racial profiling, several acts, such as the End Racial Profiling Act of 2004, are trying to be passed. According to Amnesty International USA, “this bill is critical to protecting fundamental rights guaranteed to citizens and non-citizens under the U.S. Constitution and international human rights laws and treaties” (Amnesty International). Although it has received some support, has not received enough backing to be passed.
In the past several years, there has been more coverage on the news and focus on civil rights groups forcing sports teams to change their mascots, than the unjust racial profiling of peoples of different ethnicities. It is time to end the racial profiling in airports and everywhere because it is against ones civil rights and is it humane. Targeting people based factors such as their race or ethnicity it is profoundly unjust. Especially in a time period with threats from terrorists that do not care about the race or ethnicity of those they harm and when the main concern should be safety for everyone.
The other issues that my team had to cover were: the legal, constitutional, public opinion, moral, ethical, and international opinion of racial profiling at American airports. Austin Bryson began with the introduction to our debate and followed with the legal and constitutional side of our argument. Austin began the introduction with a definition of racial profiling, so the class would understand the basis for our argument. After the brief introduction, Austin began to discus the legal aspects of racial profiling. The United States constitution and several court cases were used as evidence for the illegal and unconstitutional use of racism. This evidence was used to support that in the United States, everyone should be treated equally and be granted the same rights under the constitution and racial profiling prohibits this.
Jessica Hulgan was responsible for the public opinion in the United States of racial profiling at American airports. Jessica presented several polls and surveys where the majority of Americans polled or surveyed believed racial profiling was wrong and should not be used. After the statistics from the polls and surveys were presented, Jessica stated several concerns that the public had. One of the major concerns was racial profiling will only continue to anger terrorists. This anger will only provoke the terrorists to attempt more acts of terror on the United States. Another concern by the population is the use of racial profiling against us. If law enforcers key on certain races and ethnicities, it puts everyone at a greater risk because it will cause airports to be more vulnerable to the non-racially profiled terrorists. One prime example Jessica used was a pregnant woman at an airport. This woman had explosive devices that she planned to set off but was captured before she was able to perform the attack. The polls, surveys, and examples of public opinion Jessica presented were perfect examples of the public opinion aspect for the con side of racial profiling.
Alex Lown handled the international opinion of racial profiling at American airports. The majority of Alex’s argument concentrated on events that happened in the United Kingdom. There was one incident were a suspect who was believed to be a suicide bomber and was killed by police mainly because of his racial profile. Another incident Alex discussed was the stopping of black driver by the police. Officers were afraid they would be accused of racial profiling or racism because black drivers were found to be pulled over the most often. Another main point was the allowance of an Arab company to run its operations at several ports in the United States. While many feared acts of terrorism, because the company was from the same area as the highjackers of September the eleventh, the port owners and Department of Homeland Security did not want to discriminate by racial profiling. The United States would look hypocritical to other countries if we racial profile. A country found on the beliefs such as equality and liberty for all, should not discriminate because of ones race or ethnicity.
Thomas Howard was responsible for the moral and ethical aspect of racial profiling at American airports. Thomas mainly focused on the fact that racial profiling was immoral and slightly similar to the injustices that were done to African Americans in the United States before integration was accepted. Thomas read several articles that discussed the hate crimes directed at any Middle Easterner or anyone who resembled one of Middle Eastern descent. The Anti-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee was a group mentioned that tried to make the public aware of the injustices being done to those who were Arab. Thomas also discussed a racial profiling point system and the accounts of several Arabs that experienced injustices while traveling in airports. The point system established a threat level by race, gender, age, and other physical characteristics. Those of Middle Eastern descent are people, with the exception of skin color, are similar to Americans and should be treated as such.
The pro racial profiling group presented a very good argument and made several very good points about racial profiling at American airports. They began their side of the debate by referring to the racial profiling of Japanese after Pearl Harbor and there were no further attacks made. All of the highjackers from September the eleventh were Arab and because of this, it is now human nature to give Middle Easterners extra looks while in airports. Although this does not ensure safety from attacks, it does make one feel better and more secure. One poll that had been taken found by the pro racial profiling group actually showed that Americans support racial profiling in American airports. Since racial profiling has been used to some extent in American airports and no other terrorist attacks have been made, the policy should not be changed. If something is working and making American airports safe, there is no need nor does it make sense to make a change. The pro group also provided evidence where racial profiling was used in other countries and it successfully cut down the number of terrorists attacks or attempted attacks in those countries. The group also claimed that racial profiling was just one of many security measures used in American airports and that only a small portion of people were negatively by it. While individual rights are very important in the United States, the overall safety of all Americans is more important. If a few have to give up some of their individual rights to ensure the safety of thousands of Americans, then racial profiling is worth it. I believe the most interesting point the pro racial profiling group made was the connection they made between African American males and prostate cancer. African American males are the most likely to develop prostate cancer and are check the most often by doctors. This is not considered racial profiling so checking Middle Easterners at airports should more should not be considered racial profiling when the majority of terrorist acts in the last decade have been carried out by Middle Easterners. Safety at American airports is priority number one and anything to ensure passengers safety should be done.
The most important thing that I learned from the debate is that racial profiling is definitely wrong, but there really is no way to get around racial profiling. Racial profiling is legally, morally, humanitarianly, ethical wrong, and it is negatively viewed as by people in our own nation, as well as those in other nations. Although it is wrong, any screening used at airports will have racial profiling. If it is not directly racial profiling, racial profiling must be used to ensure that the sampling of people in the screening remains random. For the sample to be random, the same number of people from each ethnicity and race must be screened and the only way to ensure this is to racially profile each person. The fact of the matter is, the only way to ensure total safety at American airports is to perform every screening on every person; but, this type of screening would take entirely too much time and money. Hopefully, we will continue to better our methods of screening and security at American Airports and attempt to not racial profile. While one hundred percent of the highjackers from September the eleventh were of Middle Eastern descent, we should not single out other Middle Easterners solely for this reason.
After each side presented their argument the groups rebutted against one another. One rebuttal the pro racial profiling group had was on the terrorists’ mindset. Their main point was if terrorist knew we did not want to racial profile, then would they be enticed to attack? This question can really work for either group in the argument. If airport security does not racial profile then those resembling Middle Easterners might be enticed to attack because they might feel they can pass security with more ease. If airport security does racial profile then those who do not resemble Middle Easterners might attack or the terrorists might try to plant weapons of destruction on those who do not resemble Middle Easterners. Another rebuttal the pro group made was the fact that if polls done on speeding show racial profiling works, then why would it not work in airports? They had evidence that on the New Jersey turnpike African Americans were the most likely to speed. Although this poll may be true, it might not true in airports. The area that the poll was taken could be traveled on mainly by African Americans, thus those who speed would be more likely to be African American. There are numerous factors that have to be taken in when racial profiling and each scenario will be different. Were racial profiling may work in one area, the exact same results are not guaranteed for a different area.
After each side had rebutted against one another, the class was allowed to ask questions to each group. One question the class asked that strengthened our argument was: has racial profiling actually worked in catching a terrorist or another threat? The only time since September the eleventh when a terrorist has attempted a bombing was the shoe bomber incident. This terrorist was caught by passengers who were suspicious and might have paid him more attention to him because of racial profiling, but this does not show that racial profiling lead to his arrest. Another question a member of the class asked was: if racial profiling is so wrong, are there are groups or acts in congress against it? The Department of Homeland Security has established an Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties to ensure the protection and physical safety of American ideals. Currently the End Racial Profiling Act of 2004 is trying to be passed but it is not getting enough backing. Since there is currently not much mention of racial profiling in the news, many Americans have forgotten or are not aware it still exists. Informing the public is vital in getting the act passed and ending racial profiling in American airports.
I honestly believe I could not have been placed in a better group. Before we met, we communicated with one another through email about a good day for our first meeting. Our group met two times in the Cooper Library before our debate and each person was present at each meeting. In our first meeting we decided which aspect of racial profiling each member would cover. At the end of the first meeting everyone was pleased with their topic and believed they already had an idea of what they wanted to cover. We also decided that would meet again at the Cooper Library in the next few days. At the second meeting everyone was very well prepared. Alex had a conflict and had to leave early but he said he was almost done with his aspect. We discussed what we had found to make sure no one would use the same sources or ideas. Also, Thomas and Jessica had found articles that Alex, Austin, and I could use. I believe that everyone in the group carried their weight and did a wonderful job.
Works Cited
Harris, David. “Flying While Arab.” Civil Rights Journal (Winter 2002): 3. Find Articles. 2006. .
Sutherland, Daniel. “Homeland Security Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties: A One-Year Review .” 10 August 2004. The Heritage Foundation. 2006. .
“Racial Profiling.” Amnesty Internationl USA. 2006. .
