Content provided in partnership with

Policy point-counterpoint: profiling at airports

International Social Science Review, Fall-Winter, 2004

Moderator: Barry D. Friedman

The United States is confronted with a dilemma: Should federal authorities utilize profiling at the security check-in point at airports? If so, they might mistreat members of certain minority groups, particularly individuals of Middle Eastern descent. "Distinctions between citizens solely because of their ancestry," the U.S. Supreme Court declared in 1943, "are by their very nature odious to a free people whose institutions are founded upon the doctrine of equality." (1) Yet, if federal authorities fail to do so, they risk the admission of a hijacker or someone who is willing to cause a mid-air explosion. This dilemma is best described by Herbert London, humanities professor at New York University, who writes: "In the freedom-security equation, we have to ask ourselves: If we interrogate or detain one person inappropriately, but in the process save 1 million lives, is it worth the trade-off?" (2)

The analysis of this policy dilemma is multifaceted. It involves the specter of discrimination against individuals who may already be suffering from the degrading effects of being stereotyped. For a nation whose history includes segregation of black citizens over many decades and incarceration of Japanese-American citizens during World War II, the thought of living through another episode of discriminatory treatment gives one pause. Yet, government authorities have a responsibility to the people of the United States to protect them from horrific experiences like the atrocity of September 11,2001 ("9/11"). Law enforcement and policy officials await opinions of the U.S. Supreme Court and lower federal courts about whether racial profiling is permissible under the courts' current understanding of the general welfare-clause of the Constitution, or whether it is prohibited as a violation of the equal-protection clause.

Some Americans consider the practice of subjecting Grandma to a wand search and even a pat-down search to be demeaning as well as a waste of time. They argue that since all of the nineteen terrorists who carried out the 9/11 atrocity were men of Middle Eastern descent between the ages of twenty and forty-five, (3) a search of Grandma is likely to do nothing to thwart terrorism. As Los Angeles Times editorial page editor Michael Kinsley has stated: "Today we're at war with a terror network that just killed [3,000] innocents and has anonymous agents in our country planning more slaughter. Are we really supposed to ignore the one identifiable fact we know about them?" (4) Even worse, the argument goes, the time and effort spent patting down Grandma represent resources that are squandered and that could have been utilized to screen more likely candidates.

Others fear the damage that profiling may do to the values of American society; they see limited benefit in profiling in so far as terrorist organizations like al Qaeda will simply deploy individuals who do not resemble men of Middle Eastern descent if screening procedures target such individuals. Such profiling may also complicate other law enforcement efforts. "Racial profiling poisons the water. It's one of the things that makes racial minorities distrust the police and that makes their work more difficult," writes Harvard law professor Randall Kennedy. (5) Furthermore, these critics fear the possible effects of expanded government powers to invade the privacy of innocent Americans. Brief cases, pocketbooks, and carry-on luggage often contain address books, cosmetics, underwear, and other items that individuals would just as soon keep private rather than seeing them scattered on a table as hundreds of travelers pass by.

Another opinion suggests the use of a combination of screening criteria: country of origin, age, sex, and travel patterns. (6) R. Spencer Macdonald, a business-law specialist, argues:

   'Of middle eastern appearance' is a rather broad category, and one
   susceptible to mistakes in judgment. However, a profile that
   considers race and gender and age and other factors (when the ticket
   was purchased, if the passenger paid cash, etc.) substantially
   mitigates the chances of error ... Narrowing the pool of potential
   terrorist suspects at airports by profiling race, gender, age, and
   other considerations could significantly improve our chances of
   apprehending terrorists before they act. (7)

On 9/11, the United States discovered that Islamic fundamentalists associated with al Qaeda were at war with it. President George W. Bush responded by declaring war against al Qaeda. The war continues. Terrorists are of a new variety: They "do not value their own lives." (8) Decisions concerning passenger screening at airports are, inevitably, matters of life and death. The essays that follow examine whether the benefits of racial profiling in terms of enhanced safety are likely to exceed the costs that result from reversing decades of efforts to reduce discrimination and show respect for the dignity of individuals without regard to race, religion, or national origin.

Policy point-counterpoint: profiling at airports

International Social Science Review, Fall-Winter, 2004

Find Research Guides for:

Find Featured Titles for: Arts

Most Popular Articles in Reference

Most Popular Publications in Reference