Racial profiling

RECENT POSTS

April 16, 2012 | 5:05 PM | By

How S. 1670 defines racial profiling, and why it’s complicated

Photo by No Borders and Binaries/Flickr (Creative Commons)

During what’s been billed as a landmark Senate hearing tomorrow, lawmakers will address racial profiling in different forms, from the profiling of Latinos under state anti-illegal immigration laws to the police profiling of black men, as well as the racial profiling that has affected Muslims, Arab Americans and others in the U.S. during a decade of counter-terrorism activity since 9/11.

A highlight of the hearing will be a bill called the End Racial Profiling Act, which has come and gone since 2001 without passage and was most recently reintroduced last year. Its principal aim is to curb profiling by law enforcement, establishing a definition for what racial profiling is, prohibiting it, and establishing a set of policies and checks and balances to prevent it.

From the bill, also known as S. 1670, the definition:

RACIAL PROFILING – The term ‘racial profiling’ means the practice of a law enforcement agent or agency relying, to any degree, on race, ethnicity, national origin, or religion in selecting which individual to subject to routine or spontaneous investigatory activities or in deciding upon the scope and substance of law enforcement activity following the initial investigatory procedure, except when there is trustworthy information, relevant to the locality and timeframe, that links a person of a particular race, ethnicity, national origin, or religion to an identified criminal incident or scheme.

Profiling allegations have long been a thorn in the side of law enforcement agencies, including the Los Angeles Police Department, which recently concluded after an internal probe that a white officer, Patrick Smith, had profiled Latino drivers. The profiling admission was a first for the agency, whose leadership had long dismissed the idea that there could be a department-wide problem in spite of a long string of complaints. But pinpointing profiling can be complicated. From a recent Los Angeles Times story on the investigation:

Whether perception or reality, about 250 formal allegations are brought against officers each year. The fact that all the allegations, until Smith, were cleared was due to the murky nature of the allegation, police officials have said. Because profiling cases hinge on what officers are thinking in the moment they make a stop, it was all but impossible to determine whether they were motivated by a racial bias unless they confess, officials said.

In a recent Q&A about racial profiling in the shooting death of Trayvon Martin, a black 17-year-old boy killed in Florida last February by a neighborhood watch volunteer, Tampa Bay Times media critic and former Poynter Institute media ethics fellow Eric Deggans addressed a more complex aspect of that “murky nature,” that being the subtle nature of prejudice. From the interview:

M-A: You wrote recently in your column of “a very simplistic understanding of racism.” You wrote: “We still, too often, act like racism is a switch — either you’re Archie Bunker or David Duke and acting as a clear cut white supremacist, or you’re not. But that’s not how I think it works.” How does this work?

Deggans: If you are alleging that some racial predujices affect a situation, you are immediately accusing someone of being a bigot. The first thing they say is that they are not a bigot, that no racial thing happened.

The problem is that prejudice is very seductive, and people who are not bigots embrace prejudice. You don’t have to be walking around like Archie Bunker to be suspicious of black males walking around your neighborhood. You don’t have to be a white supremacist to indulge racism.

It’s going to be an interesting hearing. The text of the profiling bill can be read here.

FILED UNDER: End Racial Profiling Act, LAPD, Racial profiling, Racial profiling Senate hearing, Trayvon Martin
March 26, 2012 | 11:32 AM | By

‘We are not the terrorists. You are.’ (Video)

Whatever you think of television news interviews with crime victims, this interview with the 17-year-old daughter of Shaima Alawadi, an Iraqi immigrant beaten to death in a possible hate crime in El Cajon, near San Diego, is so powerful that is is difficult to watch at times.

Fatima Alhimidi, who found her mother’s severely beaten body in her home last week, spoke to the local station KUSI a few days ago while her mother clung to life in a San Diego hospital. She defiantly addresses a hateful note that she found next to her mother:

“I found her on the floor drowned in her own blood, with a letter next to her hear saying ‘go back to your country, you terrorist.’ We are not the terrorists. You are. Whoever did it. We don’t know what color you are, but we do know one thing. You are not Christian, you are not Muslim, and you are not Jewish. You are someone without a religion, because if you know God, you would know God would not accept that.”

Alawadi, who was beaten in the head with a tire iron, died Saturday. She was 32 and the mother of five children. Her oldest daughter said she found evidence of a break-in at their home in El Cajon, a suburb to the east of San Diego that since the 1990s has become the nation’s second-largest destination for Iraqi immigrants. Many have arrived as refugees since the start of the most recent U.S.-led war, while others have roots there dating to the first Gulf War.

The entire note has yet to be released by police, but apparently a similar note was found outside the family’s home prior to the beating. According to the Associated Press, the family had moved in recent weeks to El Cajon from Michigan, and the victim’s husband had worked in the past on contract with the U.S. government as a cultural adviser for troops.

Family members have said that Alawadi observed Muslim standards of modest dress and wore hijab, the traditional head scarf. Some Iraqi immigrants in El Cajon are Muslim, while many others are Chaldean Christians, a religious minority in Iraq. KPBS in San Diego interviewed several Iraqi Americans who live in the neighborhood and are rattled by the the killing. From the story:

On a commercial strip a few blocks away, people trickle through the Main Street Meat Market.

Ramez Kadhim, the shop owner’s brother, says he is afraid. He arrived from Iraq just six months ago, and says Alawadi¹s murder has shattered his notion of what moving to the U.S. would mean.

“I’m afraid about my brother, about my sister. I’m afraid! Because someone like this one maybe kill me,” said Kadhim.

But Bassam Yousif, the shop’s butcher, steps out from behind the counter, where he says the murdered woman frequently bought halal meat for her family.

He said he’s never felt discriminated against living in El Cajon, and still feels safer here than he did in Baghdad. But the murder still baffles him.

“They are a normal family and a simple family. Why? Those are our questions. Why they kill her? I don’t know,” said Yousif.

Since Alawadi’s death this weekend, there have been inevitable comparisons to the shooting death of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin in Florida last month. Like in Alawadi’s death, there is believed to be a racial profiling component, and some of the social media comparisons have addressed profiling in the context of what both victims wore: A hijab and, in Martin’s case, a hoodie. “Hoodie or hijab – this needs to stop,” one person tweeted. Protests are being planned, including a “Hoodies & Hijabs” rally next Thursday in North Carolina.

FILED UNDER: Hate crime, Racial profiling, Shaima Alawadi, Trayvon Martin
November 8, 2011 | 10:44 AM | By

Readers sound off on racial-ethnic profiling

Photo by Jeffrey Beall/Flickr (Creative Commons)

A post from Friday that featured five American Muslims discussing racial-ethnic profiling in light of the New York Police Department’s Muslim profiling case, a report on FBI profiling and other recent news drew a long string of comments over the weekend, and the discussion among readers continues on the site.

The reactions have been surprisingly civil, considering. Some readers believe that law enforcement officials are within their rights to target specific ethnic communities for surveillance, while others hold firm that this kind of law enforcement action is an infringement on the civil rights of law-abiding Americans. Here’s a taste of the discussion that’s been taking place:

The first comment this weekend came from Jason Van Bemmel, who wrote:

How do we expect anti-terror law enforcement to protect us from future terrorist attacks if they do not monitor communities most likely to have terrorists in them?  The terrorists who have attacked us and who have plotted to attack us are Muslims.  That doesn’t mean that all Muslims are terrorists or even that most Muslims harbor or sympathize with terrorists.  However, if you’re looking for Islamic terrorists, the place to watch is Islamic communities.  That’s really just common sense and good police strategy.  We cannot realistically expect them to do otherwise.

The comment was rebuked by several readers, including Larry Woller, who replied:

Threats to my ability of pursuing life, liberty and freedom does not come from terrorists threats or Muslims but from within..only when law enforcement practices the same vigorous monitoring of all aspects of American society that they do Muslims and others will I concede they are not racial profiling..

Sulayman also replied:

That doesn’t mean the police can treat the entire community of millions of Muslim-Americans as suspects. When the JDL was terrorizing people, they didn’t start bugging mosques and compiling lists of all Jewish-owned businesses like the NYPD is doing today against Muslims.

Come on, that just goes against state and federal law. Police can’t target someone solely because they’re Muslim, courts have determined that it goes against the First Amendment.

Another reader has pointed out parallels between what Muslims in the U.S. are experiencing today and what Japanese Americans experienced in the era of internment camps during World War II. And reader Liam Foote brought up post-September 2001 hate crimes against people perceived to be Muslim, which the interviews in the post didn’t get into:

The story doesn’t mention other victims such as Sikh merchant Balbir Singh Sodhi, shot and killed by wingnut Frank Roque simply because he wore a turban and beard.

What are your thoughts on racial-ethnic profiling? Join the discussion here.

FILED UNDER: Culture/Identity, Politics/Justice, Ethnic profiling, FBI, FBI counteterrorism training, Islam, Muslims, NYPD, Racial profiling
November 4, 2011 | 12:19 PM | By

Five American Muslims on racial-ethnic profiling: ‘This is my country. I feel insulted.’

Photo by Jeffrey Beall/Flickr (Creative COmmons)

Over the past several weeks, a growing number of law enforcement documents have surfaced pointing to the institutional profiling of Muslims in the decade after the September 11, 2001 terror attacks. First, an Associated Press investigation revealed a large-scale New York Police Department effort to collect intelligence on Muslims in the New York area, with police conducted surveillance on Muslim neighborhoods, mosques and businesses, even checking out immigrants who changed their names to sound more American.

Also controversial has been the use of counterterrorism training materials by the Federal Bureau of Investigations, under fire for using materials portraying Muslims in a negative light. And late last month, the American Civil Liberties Union issued a report alleging that the FBI targeted specific ethnic communities across the United States based on race, ethnicity, religion and nationality for potential criminal investigation.

While Muslims weren’t the only ones scrutinized, the organization said that FBI documents obtained via the Freedom of Information Act showed that agents monitored Muslim and Arab-American communities in Michigan as a probable terrorist recruitment ground. Law enforcement officials have contended they were engaging in effective crime mapping, not ethnic profiling.

KPCC intern Yasmin Nouh spoke with several American Muslims in California after the latter report was released, some of them community leaders, others rank-and-file citizens. Some have been subject to law enforcement scrutiny themselves, including the president of an Orange County, Calif. mosque infiltrated by an FBI informant.

While most aren’t surprised by the recent news, it’s disappointing, they say. Some have chosen not to engage with law enforcement for lack of trust; others see an opportunity to foster dialogue. “If you’re not at the table,” one man said, “you’ll be in the menu.” Some of their thoughts:

We continued to maintain our relationship because at the end of the day, although we were disappointed, we still gave the FBI the benefit of the doubt that they are doing what they need to do to protect citizens of the U.S..

It doesn’t make us happy to hear that FBI agents are being trained about Muslims and Islam by individuals that don’t know anything about Muslims and Islam and they’re feeding law enforcement agents with incorrect and inaccurate information. I’m pleased to see and hear that Muslim organizations have spoken out against this and as a result, Muslims are being called to the table to meet with law enforcement, and review materials, because if you’re not at the table, you’ll be in the menu.

  • Shakeel Syed, head of the Shura Council of Southern California, an umbrella organization of local mosques and Muslim groups. After meeting with the FBI regularly since mid-2004, the council officially suspended relations with the agency in 2008, after Syed found out that the agency was collecting information on his activities. In 2007, the Shura Council and several other Muslim groups filed a lawsuit against the FBI over surveillance.

In terms of alienation, I don’t feel alienated. This is my country. I feel insulted. I feel betrayed. You fool me once, shame on you. You feel me twice, shame on me. And hence we [Shura Council] continue to remain engaged for the purpose of everything else except mutual understanding and dialogue, and all that time wasted on meeting with the FBI.

But if there is an imminent situation, they can reach out to us for the sake of communication. Our engagement will remain in the area of advocacy and righting these wrongs but not in getting to know one another.

FILED UNDER: Culture/Identity, Politics/Justice, Ethnic profiling, FBI, FBI counterterrorism training, Islam, Muslims, NYPD, Racial profiling
January 28, 2011 | 9:23 AM | By

Honoring civil rights pioneer Fred Korematsu

Photo Courtesy of the family of Fred T. Korematsu/Flickr (Creative Commons)

Fred Korematsu, seated center, at a 1983 press conference announcing the re-opening of his civil rights case.

Sunday marks the first celebration of a new state holiday, Fred Korematsu Day, for the late Japanese American civil rights hero whose journey as an activist began when he challenged his forced incarceration in an internment camp during World War II.

A bill approving the Jan. 30 holiday was signed last September by former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, making it the first holiday in the United States honoring an Asian American leader.

Assembly member Warren Furutani, whose 55th district includes parts of the South Bay and Long Beach, sponsred the bill. He wrote about Korematsu’s legacy in yesterday’s Daily Breeze:

While the use of the term “concentration camp” may seem controversial to some, we must not forget that Japanese-Americans incarcerated during World War II were American citizens who were uprooted from their homes, forced to live in remote camps, and were not given due process of law. In fact, President Franklin Roosevelt used the term “concentration camp” to identify the camps while they were in existence.

At one time, this chapter was virtually ignored in American history books. But in the late 1960s, information started to emerge, and outrage accompanied the growing awareness about this dark time.

One of the unexpected actors to emerge in this unfolding drama was a humble individual who challenged the law and executive order that allowed Japanese-Americans to be incarcerated in 1942. His name was Fred Korematsu, and he decided that what he learned about freedom, as an American citizen of Japanese ancestry in San Francisco Bay Area public schools, applied to him as well.

Korematsu was born in 1919 in Oakland to Japanese immigrant parents. According to to an official biography, he initially tried to enlist in the U.S. National Guard and U.S. Coast Guard at the onset of the war, but was turned away due to his ethnicity. He found work as a shipyard welder and was 23 years old when, in 1942, he received his incarceration order.

Continue reading →

FILED UNDER: Culture/Identity, Politics/Justice, Civil rights, Fred Korematsu, Racial profiling, Rep. Warren Furutani
October 25, 2010 | 5:25 PM | By

What we talk about when we talk about profiling people in airports

Photo by amrufm/Flickr (Creative Commons)

A cheery group of travelers, the women in Muslim head scarves, or hijab, walks through an airport. April, 2009

Most of the reader comments that have flooded news sites since NPR’s dismissal of news analyst Juan Williams last week, following a remark he made about Muslims during an appearance on Fox’s “The O’Reilly Factor,” have been either about his comment or the network’s decision to fire him.

But some people have taken Williams’ remark – about becoming nervous when he got on a plane and saw people in “Muslim garb” – and provided their own opinions about the profiling of Muslims and others in airports. Some have posted comments about being profiled, others about doing the profiling. Here are a few excerpts from the past few days.

On the KPCC website under an audio clip from Friday’s AirTalk program with Larry Mantle, which aired a segment Friday on the Williams incident, ”Hargobind” posted:

I am so glad this topic is being discussed. I am a Sikh American, wear a turban and have a long beard. For all practical purposes I look like a Muslim, and I understand that knee jerk response. I am one of most randomly screened people in the airport, and I kind of understand it why.

I am not just hoping that people will one day understand that 99% of people wearing a turban in U.S. are not Muslims but Sikhs, but also that people who are wearing a so called Muslim garb are not choosing to define themselves as Muslims first over being American. So far I have not yet found an American garb, if there is one please do tell.

Under NPR’s initial story about the dismissal (which has received more than 8,000 comments), a reader identified as Millini Skuba wrote:

I, too, am nervous around Muslims on planes, but I’m nervous around teens of any color when I’m alone in a parking lot at night. That doesn’t mean I’m racist or prejudiced.

Continue reading →

FILED UNDER: Culture/Identity, Politics/Justice, Hijab, Islam, Juan Williams, KPCC, Racial profiling, TSA