Profiling is Constitutional

The Washington Times ^ | 8-15-2005 | John F. Banzhaf III

[hophead]

The New York Civil Liberties Union has sued to stop police from randomly searching some New York City subway riders, charging that it might lead to racial profiling ("Timid on terrorism," Commentary, Aug. 4). But racial profiling -- considering race or ethnicity in determining whom to search -- is itself constitutional if done in accordance with guidelines the U.S. Supreme Court has laid down. The court has frequently held that the government may consider race if it is reasonably necessary to further a "compelling state interest." Recently, it found that race could be considered in college admissions. Obviously, the government's interest in protecting the lives of thousands of citizens from a major terrorist attack is at least as "compelling" as a better college education. In other words, because preventing another major terrorist attack is obviously a very "compelling state interest," some reasonable use of ethnicity is permitted. The court also has held that ethnicity cannot be the controlling factor, but must be considered along with other criteria. These other criteria might include dress (e.g., wearing heavy clothing in warm weather, carrying a backpack with visible wires, etc.), behavior (e.g., nervousness or inappropriate sweating, absence of eye contact, pacing, etc.) or age. Most Arabs -- even most young Arab males -- aren't terrorists, but neither are all people who appear nervous, wear heavy clothing or pace. Using ethnicity -- along with gender and age -- as one of several factors is arguably much more likely to find and stop a terrorist than searches that include as many elderly black men and middle-aged Chinese and Caucasian women as young Arab males.

[hophead]

Very interesting concept from a man whose concepts I have never agreed with. I must say I agree with him on this one. This is the same man who has formulated the lawsuits against the fast food industry and suits against the tobacco companies. He is dead on with this one. Just goes to show that there can sometimes be agreement among opposites. It is very ingenious to link the SCOTUS' ruling in the Michican Law school case a year or so ago,(The court held that the government may consider race if it is reasonably necessary to further a "compelling state interest.") to profiling. Is there an attorney out there who will take this case on? I wish Mr. Banzhaf would put as much effort n this as he did the fast food cases.

[Zeppo]

Yes - this idea is a wonderful way to rub the faces of the "affirmative action is necessary and Constitutional" crowd in the abomination that they have created. Turnabout being fair play, and all...

[NathanBookman]

"Recently, it found that race could be considered in college admissions."

It goes both ways!!!! Ooops!

[359Henrie]

Good, now get crackin'

[Rightfootforward]

Aw, geez. ACLU in NY is going to be saddened, deeply saddened by this. Except that it's not news and they already know it!

[Rightfootforward]

Excuse me. I mean the New York Civil Liberties Union...like there's a difference.