Whats Race Got to Do with It - Essay Example

RUNNING HEAD: WHAT’S RACE GOT TO DO WITH IT? WRITING PROJECT NO WHAT’S RACE GOT TO DO WITH IT? The article “What’s Race Got to do with it?” bylined by John Cloud, Marguerite Michaels and Sarah Dale appeared in the Time Magazine online version on July 30, 2001. The article examines the issue of racial profiling allegedly being employed by police authorities in stopping and arresting suspects. Thus, under this theory, cops are alleged to more likely stop, for example, an African American man driving a car on suspicions of DUI than they would a white man or subject Arab-Americans to more scrutiny at airports than other airline passengers or question young Hispanic men on suspicions of drug involvements than other classes of people. Widespread reports of racial profiling that led to incidents like the one in Cincinnati, where police violently clashed with black protesters for three days, have called the attention of the public and inevitably, many politicians. Cloud et al observes a nationwide scrambling for legislations banning racial profiling as a tool in police operations. The writers anticipate, however, a problem in implementing a sweeping prohibition of racial profiling as was being contemplated by the End Racial Profiling bill, then pending in 2000 in Congress. One possible outcome of such a law is a police force hesitant to do their jobs, such as what happened after the Cincinnati riots where arrests dwindled in numbers despite an opposing direction of crime incidences. Another is the unlikely feasibility of a mechanism that could accurately predict when or how racial profiling is actually being committed. The article is a well-written, subtle piece of writing imbuing as much logic and reason to impress the readers of its objectivity to cushion a position that leans towards the less popular view in this highly charged issue. The general impression that one gets after reading the article is that the writers wanted to impress the American readers of the folly of a sweeping anti-racial profiling law, considering the absence of a mechanism that could exactly measure racial profiling. Thus, the article begins by taking into account the perspectives of police, particularly from one who whines about “guilt by uniform.” The article also points out that there is no exact definition of what racial profiling is and hence, the consequent difficulty in telling the police to stop employing it, as the wrong itself defies precise and conclusive definition (Cloud et al 2). Still later, it stresses the difficulty in gauging the actual amount of racial profiling being practiced by the police force (Cloud et al 3). Understandably, the writers chose to approach this subject in a very subtle way, presenting facts and reports as much as possible and letting interviewees mouth relevant data, which nevertheless, support the writers’ point. The article does not make much use of ‘pathos’ - the writers seemingly holding back perhaps out of fear that they would be stirring the hornet’s nest. On the other hand, the writers attempt to resort to the appeal of logic and reason by sprinkling an abundance of interviews, reports and factual accounts of events throughout the article that represented their perspectives rather than enunciating these views themselves. The appeal to logic and reason seems to be employed precisely for the readers to forget the emotional underpinning of the issue, which is not bad except that it makes the writers look like fence-sitters at times with no real position of their own leaving the readers confused as to what their objectives really are. Thus, as the writers allow some police personnel to recount the gloom that pervades their respective agencies leaving their hands tied with charges of racial profiling looming above their heads like the sword of Damocles, the article followed this up with details of racial profiling incidents such the “flying while black” incident involving the seizure of $7,000 from a black businessman by the DEA on the ground that it was drug money later proven false and the “ailing while black” confession from a pain specialist who admitted that doctors often held back from giving sickle-cell-disease patients painkillers for the reason that they are susceptible to addiction (Cloud et al 2). Moreover, as the article presents an authoritative view that describes the difficulty of actually measuring racial profiling and a city police’s chief dilemma in publicizing raw data involving police’s stop minorities in his district for fear that it will lead to misleading headlines, this was followed by an account of DEA’s Operation Pipeline where many young Hispanic men were subjected to searches on mere suspicion that they were drug couriers (Cloud et al 4-5). But then again, this strategy could also be underpinned by the fact this was an article for the Time Magazine, where write ups are expected to be professionally written and as unbiased as possible. To some extent, the article has a point. Measuring how and when racial profiling is being committed presents some complication that can deter and hamper police effectiveness and. On what basis, for example, should a police officer be adjudged as committing racial profiling? Should this entail every policeman to write a report detailing how many of the stops or apprehensions he made for the day involving apprehension of African Americans or Hispanics or some other minorities? This could have the effect of psychologically interfering with police work, and on the criminal justice system in general, because the police would be forced to hesitate to stop and think whether stopping a particular suspect would place him under possibility of legal liability. Time is of the essence in anti-crime operations and hesitations could either mean a suspect let loose or police life placed in danger. Moreover, there is something wrong with placing a stress on race as a gauge of whether the police are doing their work correctly or not, rather than whether they exercised proper and legal justifications for stopping or apprehending a suspect, whether that suspect is black, white or Hispanic. A just criminal justice system must apply equally to all those who have violated the law, without distinction between races. A police officer should not be hindered from arresting any suspect on the ground that the suspect will add to and lengthen his list of apprehension for a certain race or minority for the day. Nonetheless, racial profiling exists and even the article acknowledges it. Yet, even while it acknowledges it, somehow the writers seem to be justifying racial profiling on the ground that statistics reveal that certain races or minority groups figure high in certain crimes or accidents or that racial profiling is only a part and not all of the factors taken into account in police stops and arrests. The article cites, for example, an Accident Analysis and Prevention study where it was shown that more African Americans failed alcohol breath tests than whites. Statistics does not however, justify racial profiling because racial profiling is per se wrong. While it will hamper the administration of justice to limit stops or arrests on account of race profiling issues, it is equally unjust for the police to consider such factors alone in deciding whether to stop a driver or bystander in the streets on the mere fact that he belongs to that race or ethnic minority, notwithstanding statistics. In its effort to appear rational and unbiased, the article asks “But is any of that relevant?” after it spouts a stream of statistics showing how blacks and Hispanics figured high in studies and surveys on drunk driving and other criminalities. It then justifies police stops as mostly underpinned by suspicious circumstances rather than race or ethnicity and then cites another study in San Diego showing a 10 to 3 ratio of probability of searches between blacks and Hispanics on one hand, and whites, on the other. In those searches, the article continues, the search on blacks and whites yield 13% chances of contraband and only 5% in Hispanics (Cloud et al 6). One is reminded of how the writers previously assailed the idea of a legislation banning racial profiling on the ground that there would be difficulty in determining when and how it is actually committed. One is surprised therefore, that after adopting such an objective frame of mind, they suddenly turned around and sweepingly rationalised police stops and searches on the road as underpinned by a myriad of concerns other than racial profiling as if they are privy to the minds of these police officers. Worse, the article supports this claim by another statistical figure. It is evident that the article tried to infuse as much logic and rationale as it can to appear objective and unbiased, subtly including information and data about actual racial profiling, to cushion the impact of its position, which is the rejection of a pending racial profiling legislation. This has the effect of making the writers appear in a constant balancing act between supporting and defending racial profiling. Nonetheless, with the article’s title as a dead giveaway, the effort proved futile in the end as the article suddenly shifted from an unbiased bystander to a prejudiced advocate of partial race profiling grounded on the justification that race and ethnicity have been proven to figure in many statistical studies and surveys. The fact that certain surveys and studies indicate a high probability of involvement of certain races and groups in certain crimes cannot justify racial profiling. Stops and other forms of apprehensions must find basis only in reasonable suspicions, and never on racial profiling, notwithstanding the statistics. On the other hand, a sweeping legislation that infringes on police work compelling the limitation of arrests and apprehensions on racial profiling grounds is not just either, and it is counterproductive. The law must find a balance between preventing racial profiling and allowing police to do their jobs without being hampered by charges of racial profiling at every twist and turn. This is because the issue of racial profiling affects not only those that have been its direct victims, but society, in general. It is a reminder that racial discrimination still exists despite decades of battling against it. It is a reminder of the weakness in our society that persists to hamper man from attaining the zenith of advanced civilization. As a member of this great society, racial profiling constitutes a personal dilemma to me who, albeit have not experienced it, is nevertheless concerned that racial discrimination continues to eat away at the fabric of our society. References: Cloud, John & Michaels, Marguerite & Dale, Sarah, What’s Race Got to Do with It? 30 July 2001. Read More