Ashcroft's Unacceptable Profiling

In recent years, police departments across the nation have been criticized by the public for their aggressive tactics and use of racial profiling. However, that criticism seemed to disappear earlier this month when Attorney General John Ashcroft announced plans by the government to find and interview 5,000 men of Middle Eastern descent. It seems that the Bush administration is now actually promoting a plan for racial profiling. The federal government, which should be the protector of civil liberties, is now the violator.

Racial profiling usually occurs when the police target someone for investigation on the basis of that person’s race, national origin or ethnicity, and not necessarily whether that person did anything wrong. In recent years, the most prevalent example of profiling has involved the use of race to determine which drivers to stop for minor traffic violations or to search for illegal drugs. Today, as a result of the Justice Department’s new orders, being an Arab or Muslim makes you suspect in America. It may make you more likely to be stopped, more likely to be searched and more likely to be arrested and imprisoned.

It is for that very reason that police chiefs in many communities feel a certain unease about assisting federal authorities in such an undertaking. While they want to fulfill their patriotic desire to assist the investigation of the Sept. 11 attacks, the police do not want to overstep their moral boundaries by violating our civil liberties. In fact, the police department of Portland, Ore. was the first to refuse to cooperate with federal officials when it decided not to participate in the interviewing of Middle Eastern immigrants because of the racial profiling it entailed.

Helping the Justice Department would have meant the violation of a state law that prohibits the police from questioning anyone about their social, political or religious views unless they are reasonably suspected of criminal activity. This law is a model and should be implemented by every state, especially since measures to profile suspects because of race or ethnicity are just not efficient.

For example, in 1998 the U.S. Customs Services was criticized for its racial profiling policies, which targeted mostly black women as potential drug couriers at the nation’s airports. As a result of the criticism, the criteria used to select those to be searched was changed. By focusing more on certain behaviors rather than ethnic background, fewer searches resulted and a significantly higher percentage of those conducted were successful.

It is wrong to single out people of Middle Eastern descent for special scrutiny. No one should be judged or accused of a crime they did not commit just because of their race or ethnicity. To allow the federal government to interview and interrogate 5,000 men, most of whom are probably innocent, may seem appropriate now in times of war, but it actually goes against everything America stands for. The terrorists’ goal on Sept. 11 was not just the annihilation of buildings and the death of thousands of people, but also an attack on American values. To respond by violating our constitutional rights and limiting our civil liberties would be equivalent to declaring defeat. The terrorists will have won.

—ANAT MAYTAL