Illustration by Josh Hagler

Thursday October 25, 2001

Racial Profiling Revisited

Since the Sept. 11 attacks, airport security has increased, more random checks of travelers are being conducted and new measures are being proposed to weed out dangerous passengers. It appears that one of these new measures includes racial profiling.

The practice of racial profiling - singling out suspects based on ethnicity - is considered by the American Civil Liberties Union as a "national disgrace." Before the terrorist attacks, racial profiling was an important issue, and gained bipartisan support in Washington to end ethnically prejudiced law enforcement. However, since the terrorist attacks, the issue has been moved to the backburner.

And some may feel that it belongs there, for now. Considering that every hijacker involved in the Sept. 11 attacks was of Middle Eastern descent, some Americans may feel that it is necessary to screen these individuals more carefully.

Allegations of racial profiling on airlines are not new. Officials say 165 discrimination complaints have been filed with federal authorities since 1997 - many of those people of Arab descent.

Arabs' airline experiences have recently been compared to blacks' driving experiences. Some blacks feel they are disproportionately pulled over by police because of their race.

Racial profiling was a civil liberty in the works before the attacks, and now it may be suspended indefinitely. Should America racially profile Arabs on airlines? Can we allow our government to strip us of our liberty? It's time we decide.

Racial profiling is useless

If we are going to profile by race, then let's be fair. Middle Eastern, Asian, Indian, Black, Hispanic, Native American - those are all easy. Now, profile everyone else - white.

What? Can't do it. Profiling white people is too hard, because you can't base it on skin color. You actually have to get to know them.

White terrorists are blending in on the street this minute.

What's happening now is not racial profiling; it is religious. But, don't worry if you are a white Muslim, you'll be safe. This profiling is of darker-skinned Muslims. Aha! If you look like bin Laden, then you might be buddy-buddy with him.

Since the beginnings of our country, there have been white terrorists blending in while we discriminate the hell out of colored skin. The Ku Klux Klan is the first one to come to mind. If one of the Aryan members got on the plane wearing his ceremonial costumes, I don't think the pilot would feel so comfortable either.

And the scary thing is that they are still around. Recently, CNN has interviewed a quote-unquote counter-terrorism expert, Larry Wayne Harris. What CNN doesn't tell you is that he is an ex-member of the Aryan nation and was arrested for illegally having vials of the bubonic plague.

Are we worried? Nope, he's white.

And not so long ago, Timothy McVeigh bombed the Oklahoma City Federal building. Did the government declare war against the fundamentalist-Christian right? No. They gave him a trial.

In fact, his religious affiliation didn't make big press.

So, as we blindly support Bush's crusade, let's remember to be fair when we racially profile.

Michael Jackson became white and bin Laden could too.

Jessica Lee is an environmental science junior. She can be reached at letters@wildcat.arizona.edu.

I can't believe I'm saying this

Well, I just want to start by saying that I'm not very fond of the phrase "racial profiling." It sounds like something out of an Ayn Rand novel, and we all know what a bore she was. Let's call it something a little softer like· oh, I don't know· let's call it "sad wittle puppy face." That's kind of catchy, right?

What I'm trying to say is that I think it's necessary. I almost can't believe I'm saying that, but it is unfortunately true.

If we were searching for a man with blond hair and blue eyes, then you can bet that we'd stop and check every single person who came through fitting that description. As it happens though, the only description we have is that the threats are of Arab descent. It is a disturbing misfortune that this is true, but it is, and we have to deal with it.

I can only implore that those responsible for carrying out the searches do so with courtesy and respect. There is no room for harassment, and it will not be tolerated.

I would also beg for the patience and understanding of those being searched. I cannot begin to imagine how embarrassing and horrifying it must be. Just know that by agreeing to these searches, you are supporting the best way we can think of to protect the citizens of this nation.

It is terribly unfortunate that we cannot narrow down the criterion of the search any further, but then, maybe that is the real problem.

Zack Armstrong is a creative writing senior. He can be reached at letters@wildcat.arizona.edu.

Looking for the one-armed man

The subject of racial profiling takes me back to "The Fugitive," not the fairly recent movie (although Harrison Ford is to die for) but to the original television program. There can't be a better example of profiling out there.

The victimized man spends restless years looking for the one-armed man who he knows killed his wife. The clutch of most shows, in a recurring pattern to keep the show running, featured the fugitive chasing a man who he thought fit the description but turned out to be just like him - an innocent man mistaken for a murderer.

Illustration by Josh Hagler

It sounds like I'm about to turn this into a moral lesson - all racial profiling is bad. But I'll surprise you and say that it's not. I fly to Madison, Wis., tomorrow, and I'll be relieved if someone pulls over an Arab, not because of his skin color, but only because he had a dark object tucked away inside his suitcase that turned out to be a gun.

I'll paraphrase Calvin Terrell, a dynamic public speaker who has graced the university in the past by saying that not all prejudgments are unhealthy. He explained that if two men enter a convenience store in Tucson in June, wearing winter trench coats, then yes, your sense of alertness and concern should indeed be raised.

But the recent practice of arresting Arab Americans, detaining them for weeks, and the depletion of civil liberties has to go. There is no tragedy terrible enough to warrant this. And there's no reward either. We'll be stuck on a never-ending search for the one-armed man, until we wise up.

Laura Winsky is a senior majoring in Spanish and political science. She can be reached at letters@wildcat.arizona.edu.

Common sense required in anti-terror bill

Yesterday, the House of Representatives passed an "anti-terror" bill by a vote of 357-66. This bill will give police more leeway in investigating activity of terrorist suspects. According to the Associated Press, it will "give police new search powers in response to last month's terrorist attacks, including the ability to secretly search homes, tap phones and track people's use of the Internet." President Bush plans on signing the bill, which could undoubtedly have implications on the future of racial profiling in this country, into law once it passes through the Senate.

My problem with this bill is the vagueness of it. What qualifies someone of being a "terrorist suspect?" Would it be an Arab who constantly wears military fatigues, with a bumper sticker on the back of his jeep that reads "America sucks" in Arabic? Or would this give police the liberty to search an Arab-American's home simply due to their ethnic background?

This is why the bill could be dangerous; if any police officer can search the home of anyone named "Muhammad" just for the hell of it, this bill is not a good thing. If an Arab can be brought in for police questioning simply because he used the word "bomb" in a personal e-mail to a friend, then that's not cool. The guy could have just been referring to how much "Waterworld" sucked.

Realistically though, it probably won't ever come to that. Keeping up with suspicious phone conversations or web surfing isn't something that any of us with nothing to hide will ever have to worry about. The president just needs to make certain that common sense is applied to the spirit of this bill once it passes into law.

Shane Dale is a political science sophomore. He can be reached at letters@wildcat.arizona.edu.

Heroes are still human and therefore flawed

Some have dubbed the current rise in Arab profiling as "flying while Arab," which of course recalls the established statement, "driving while black." However, there are important differences between the racial profiling against African-Americans and what is happening in airports across the country.

African-Americans and other minorities are pulled over more than whites, not because they are responsible for more crime, but because they are of dark skin. Policemen that pull over African-Americans, without good reason, do so because they are prejudiced. I'm not saying they are bigote, or racist - although many are. I'm saying that many officers irrationally believe that dark skin equals a higher chance of that person being a criminal. That's wrong. That cannot be tolerated.

Arab Americans, on the other-hand, have a different problem. Recent events have shown that people of Arab decent are 100 percent more likely to hijack planes and fly them into tall buildings than other folks. Screening Arab-looking people more thoroughly at airports isn't just reasonable, it's necessary.

An interesting problem that I've noticed is people being blinded by the stigma of "heroism." Since dozens of New York's finest were killed saving lives in the Sept. 11 attacks, some feel that it is inappropriate to complain about policemen.

Yeah, yeah, the police and the firefighters are heroes, I'm not arguing. But the terrorist attacks didn't all of a sudden make them saints. They are human. They are flawed. If they screw up and accidentally shoot a black man for no reason, they still deserve to be castigated. I don't care how many people they dragged out of the rubble.

Cory Spiller is a history and creative writing senior. He can be reached at letters@wildcat.arizona.edu.