By Selwyn Duke

When the Times Square bombing suspect was first reported to
be a “white male,” I shook my head.  I
knew that, despite Mayor Bloomberg’s asinine musings about how the perpetrator
was probably “homegrown” and perhaps someone upset about the healthcare bill,
this was nonsense.  “It’s about as likely
as a story about Bill Clinton becoming a monk,” I thought. 

Of course, this was no great insight.  Given that 99 percent of the terrorists
bedeviling us today are non-white Muslims, it was just common sense — otherwise
known as profiling.

The critics of Arizona’s new immigration law complain that
it will lead to “racial profiling.”  In
response, the law’s defenders point out that the legislation specifically
forbids the practice.

Both groups are wrong.

They accept two false suppositions.  The first is that the practice in question is
immoral.

The second is that “racial profiling” actually exists.

Generally speaking,
it does not — that is, not in the sense of a phenomenon widespread enough to
warrant continual media attention.  In
reality, there are only two kinds of profiling: good profiling and bad
profiling.  Let’s discuss the difference.

Profiling is simply a method by which law enforcement can
determine the probability that an individual has committed a crime or has
criminal intent.  Now, when making this
assessment, many different factors are considered.  Some have to do with age, sex, dress,
behavior, the car being driven, whether or not a person is “out of place”
(e.g., a well-dressed fellow in a BMW cruising a drug-plagued neighborhood),
and, yes, some have to do with race.  But
whatever the criteria, good profiling chooses them in accordance with sound
criminological science.  And as soon as
we subordinate that standard to anything,
such as political or social concerns, we have rendered it bad profiling.

We also render it unfair. 
That is, contrary to the notion that using racial factors in profiling
is discriminatory, in the negative sense of the word, it is actually the refusal to consider them that is
so. 

I’ll explain.  I’m a
member of one of the most profiled groups in the country: males.  Law enforcement views us much more
suspiciously than females because we commit an inordinate amount of crime.  And we aren’t the only ones, as youths also
attract a jaundiced eye for the same reason. 
Now, if considering race when profiling is “racism,” isn’t considering
sex and age “sexism” and “ageism”?  

The truth is that none of these things are any kind of
ism.  And is it just to discriminate
among higher-crime-incidence groups — scrutinizing some more closely but not
others — based on whether they are in or out of favor politically and
socially? 

This is where the capital-D discrimination lies.  If you’re male or a teen, you’re fair game.  But, for instance, when the matter is Muslims,
the double standards fly.  When seeking
to identify terrorists, the people who have no problem placing the probing eye
on males warn that Muslims mustn’t receive extra scrutiny.  But why?  As far as the terrorist threat facing the West
goes, “Muslim” is a more consistent part of the terrorist profile than is “male,”
as there have been more female suicide bombers than non-Muslim ones.

Some may say we must be especially sensitive with regard to
race (yes, I realize “Islamic” isn’t a race), but this is silly for two
reasons.  First, it is a hang-up; it is suicidal
to sacrifice blood on the altar of political correctness.  Second, there is no blanket refusal to consider racial factors when profiling.  For example, part of the profile for serial
killers and methamphetamine dealers is “Caucasian.”

Likewise, given that more than 90 percent of the illegals in
Arizona hail from Mexico and Latin America, isn’t “Hispanic” part of the
relevant profile here?  Mind you, the
operative word is “part.”  To say “This
person appears to be of Mexican descent, so he must be illegal” is no different
than assuming that every white person deals meth — it would be bad
profiling.  But just as a meth dealer
will usually exhibit characteristics that distinguish him from Morris the
accountant, an illegal alien is usually distinguishable from an acculturated
Hispanic American.

And what if you’re a citizen who doesn’t exhibit the
differences or one who can’t distinguish them? 
If the former, now you know why assimilation matters.  And what of the latter?  Then you aren’t qualified to profile
professionally.

Nevertheless, society needs those who are.  As Dr. Walter Williams once wrote:

What about using race or ethnicity
as proxies for some unobserved characteristic? 
Some racial and ethnic groups have a higher incidence of mortality from
various diseases than the national average.  In 1998, mortality rates for cardiovascular
diseases were approximately 30 percent higher among black adults than among
white adults.  Cervical cancer rates were
almost five times higher among Vietnamese women in the United States than among
white women.  The Pima Indians of Arizona
have the highest known diabetes rates in the world.  Prostate cancer is nearly twice as common
among black men as white men.

My, those “racist” diseases. 
Of course, race’s and ethnicity’s value as proxies isn’t limited to
physical disease but extends to so many things. 
Just ask Jesse Jackson.  In 1993
he said,
“There is nothing more painful to me . . . than to walk down the street and
hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery, then look around and see
somebody white and feel relieved.”   

The reality is that we all profile.  For example, everyone (not just ol’ Jena Jesse) has
heard about something called a “suspicious-looking character.”  Also, having been raised in New York City,
I’ve often heard people be identified as “looking like tourists.”  Now, what do you think these things
mean?  We are able to thus categorize people
only because we’re all natural-born sociologists and psychologists; we all
possess some understanding of man’s behavior, of what is normal in a given
situation, and can use this knowledge to help assess others’ status and
intent.  Who wouldn’t be wary of someone with
a buzz cut who sports a Swastika tattoo on his forehead?  Who can’t identify an angry countenance as
just that? 

Of course, these are obvious examples, and the more subtle
the behavior and signs, the more discerning the observer must be to note and
draw correct conclusions from them. 
Regardless, this ability is good — and wholly necessary for
survival.  It is no different from how we
profile animals and would pet the sheep but not the wolf; it allows us to avoid
danger, both to our person and the kind that could result in being wronged.  And when it’s applied by the police, we call
it “profiling.”  Yet it is nothing but
the application of common sense within the sphere of law enforcement.  Nevertheless, Jena Jesse and others would
disallow good profiling and insist that the police check their common sense at
the station-house door.

After Dr. Williams discusses how the prevalence of certain
diseases correlates with race, he asks, “Would one condemn a medical
practitioner for advising greater screening and monitoring of black males for
cardiovascular disease and prostate cancer, or greater screening and monitoring
for cervical cancer among Vietnamese American females, and the same for diabetes
among Pima Indians?”

Unfortunately, when the matter is the social disease of
crime, we not only condemn such a practice, we fire the good
diagnosticians.  For example, in an older
article about former attorney general John Ashcroft’s investigation of 13
cities for “racial profiling” (thank you, George Bush), ABC reports on efforts
to eradicate the practice and writes, “police
officials who defended profiling have been removed from their posts.”  Translation: Our security has been placed in
the hands of PC lackeys.

Lest I be misunderstood, I don’t say good profiling is the
magic bullet for Arizona’s illegal alien problem.  In point of fact, I presented more effective
solutions in my piece
“Immigration: Solutions, Not Excuses.” 
My point is a larger one: Whether the crime is violating borders, bodies
or buildings, whether it’s committed in Arizona or Anytown USA, good profiling
is not just part of law enforcement. 

It’s the heart law enforcement.

What do you think the legal standard of “reasonable suspicion”
is?  What should the police be suspicious
of?  Only males, teens, and whites in
certain situations? 

The bigots are not those who support good profiling, which scrutinizes all groups
in accordance with sound criminological science.  It is the Times Square bombing-analyst hopers
(such as Contessa
Brewer) who play pin the tale on the honkey, doing their best imitation of
the three blind, deaf and mute monkeys.

America, we need to end our hang-up with race — before it
ends us.