In “Racial Profiling”, Kenneth Jost addresses a highly controversial issue in this country- racial profiling. In essence, Jost looks to explore the claim that there is a genuine profiling bias among US law enforcement officers. On the one hand, it seems unbelievable that a significant population would harbor a genuine hatred towards these groups, conscious or otherwise. Pro-racial profiling people tend to argue instead that there are more stops and arrests for black and latino men because they commit more crimes. On the other hand, anti-racial profiling people point out that studies suggest that certain racial and ethnic groups, especially black and latino males, are disproportionately questioned and/or arrested as compared to other groups, such as white males.

As we mentioned last class, I do not believe that profiling is an inherently flawed process. On the smallest and largest of scales, humans are constantly sorting pieces, pulling facts, and creating cohesive narratives with the limited information at their disposal. In this sense, profiling is a means to a specific end. We must therefore ask ourselves how this tool is wielded, if it’s efficient, and if it’s effective (I am aware that these questions are not operationalized- please forgive such an egregious transgression). These are ultimately the questions that this chapter builds towards (especially, for instance, when producing reports about whether or not aggressive stop and frisk policies actually reduce crime). Personally, I believe that this racial profiling bias exists, just as profiling exists on an individual level. (I believe this both from statistics presented, and also from personal experience.) More though, I believe that rather than get rid of profiling altogether, we should learn to profile better, to more efficiently and morally achieve our end of reducing crime. To do so, we must ask ourselves what informs our profiles? Is it truly crime rates, or the media, or stereotypes from our communities,…? In the face of these questions, we can openly address issues of bias, and train officers to recognize and combat these biases. Besides, if it’s true that there is an implicit bias among law enforcement officers, then doing away with profiling would not really solve the issue, and would instead remove the platform for which such an issue and bridging of gaps could be addressed. [I see how this last sentence could be considered tangential, but I do not wish to erase it because of how strongly I believe in open dialogue and addressing issues head on.]

When reading the CQ Researcher’s description of the Joe Arpaio situation, what stood out to me was the double standard that is created. He is a man who justifies all of his actions by insisting that he is upholding the law. He racially profiles because he believes that it is the best way for him to enforce immigration law. Yet at the same time, not only does he flout the law by racially profiling, he flouts the law through his ‘“persistent disregard’ of the court’s rulings.” He clearly does not respect the law, since he only upholds it when it is convenient to him (a trait shared by the Commander In-Chief). His lack of respect of the law illuminates how his actions are motivated by racism and not out of his desire to uphold the law.

This double standard also became apparent while I was reading the account of Sarah Abdurrahman who was stopped at an airport because she was Muslim, and the justification was given that since al Qaeda carried out 9/11, all Muslims are now suspect. It also became apparent when I read the passage that spoke about how there are researchers justifying the proportionally larger stopping African-Americans and Hispanics, because a larger number of people from these groups have committed crimes than other racial groups. Yet these same people would never advocate for racial profiling when assessing who should qualify for a gun permit, even though most mass shooters are white. The discourse in those moments are these are mentally ill men who are anomalies, yet the discourse in the situations described in the book is that profiling is effective and it helps to protect people so it is worth it.

While I do not advocate that profiling should entirely be abolished, the rhetoric that supports profiling is clearly about the racist ideologies that are ingrained in the national psyche, and not about improving public safety. Only when we change this rhetoric can we change the system.