Cherry 1

Dedric Cherry
ENG 112-56
INST: Connie Douglas
Round Table Essay Draft
10 October 2016
Line of Inquiry: The Effectiveness of Racial Profiling and Its Aftermath
Five men, very similar in appearance, are lined up against a brick wall with only their
hands to hold them up as they are patted down and questioned by the police. These events
seemingly transpired without cause to the bystanders observing the scene. It also appears that all
the men were possibly targeted for question by race. However, for the police, they (the
departments) were just employing a common practice in following up on a tip about a robbery
down the road. Racial Profiling.
For those who are unfamiliar with the term, racial profiling is a practice by law
enforcement that is used by targeting suspects based on their ethnicity, race, religion, etc. in
relation to a crime. Racial Profiling occurs when race is used as a criterion in deciding whom to
investigate, unless there is evidence that a particular crime was committed by someone of a
particular race (Clegg) One may ask why it is important. Citizens often wonder why one would
concern themselves with something that is preventing crime. As with any practices used by those
with authority one must weigh the good done against any potential harm.
Victims of racial profiling do not have the same view of the procedure. A major problem
comes from poor management of its use. One has to account for biases of those that are
submitting information about the suspect. First, the fact that many US whites fear blacks out of
racism (e.g., wherein blacks are feared even though there are whites in the relevant context who
appear to be and indeed are just as dangerous but who are not feared) must be taken into account
when a white witness identifies a suspect as being black or brown or otherwise not white.

Cherry 2

(Corlett). It goes to show that there is a bias when describing suspects whether the witnesses
realize it or not.
This practice can alienate the community. Take for example the boston bombings; when
looking for suspects law enforcement went with suspects that fit the description of someone
who would commit this crime. It in part led to the New York Post hastily adding pictures of
possible suspects that were completely off base. A young middle eastern athlete with no ties to
the perps (suspects) was featured in the front page as a person of interest. In the end it turns out
that the actual suspect were light skinned.
Next, one looks at those who enforce the law. Law enforcement is aware of the
consequences that come from racial profiling but at the same must weigh a few broken eggs
against the greater good of a community or country. Fears of being accused of biased profiling is
put against preventing or solving a crime. Those who are aware of its use believe that the
practice was unusually candid in recognizing that it chose the best of a bad lot, by allowing
substantial errors in order to protect against yet greater losses (Epstein)
Enforcement typically uses surveillance first. Surveillance is a method of gathering
information used to observe the behavior of people in the public. This information is used to
determine what types of behavior is out of the ordinary for regular citizens based on observation
of their day to day life. It has been argued that it can be very intrusive but it helps eliminate the
instances of profiling based off biases.
What appears that there is no group of people that go unaffected by profiling and
profiling related security procedures. It would appear that there are three groups of people
attached to profiling. There are those that are targeted by profiling, those that enforce profiling,

Cherry 3

and those who are subject to profiling, so that they as citizens can be protected more effectively.
It would appear that the last group does not hold the same negative feelings about profiling.
Sam Fulwood III is senior fellow at The Center for American Progress. In a few of the
articles, he writes regarding profilings effectiveness as a security strategy. Despite Fullwood IIIs
opposition to profiling, he states that four out of five citizens are pro-profiling, at least in regards
to airport security. He goes on to state although most citizens find that some methods of profile
related security strategies are too invasive, they have chosen to accept it as a fact of life, a
measure needed to protect their community against attacks.
When exploring the use of racial profiling, there are several things to consider. There are
three groups that play a part or are affected by profiling. There is the community that is either
made safer for it or alienated as consequence of it. There are those serving in law enforcement
that use profiling to confirm biases or to solve and prevent crimes effectively. Last there is the
community that sits outside the glass, either observing the use of profiling or being spared as
victims due to it.
It is not as easy as one would assume it would be to pick a side in this debate. The use of
racial profiling and profiling can be used to do good or do harm. That is the case with most
things. The best thing that someone put in this situation can do is be well read enough on the
nuances of the subject.

Cherry 4

WORKS CITED
Clegg, Roger. "There Is No Need for the End Racial Profiling Act." Racial Profiling. Ed. Nol
Merino. Farmington Hills, MI: Greenhaven Press, 2015. Current Controversies. Rpt. from
"Ending Racial Profiling in America." 2012. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 4 Oct. 2016.

Corlett, J. Angelo. "Racial Profiling Is Morally Justifiable in Certain Circumstances." Racial

Profiling. Ed. Carol Ullmann and Lynn M. Zott. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2013. Opposing
Viewpoints. Rpt. from "Profiling Color." Journal of Ethics 15.1-2 (June 2011). Opposing
Viewpoints in Context. Web. 1 Oct. 2016.

Epstein, Richard A. "Concerns About Racial Profiling Should Not Inhibit Terrorist Surveillance."
Racial Profiling. Ed. Nol Merino. Farmington Hills, MI: Greenhaven Press, 2015. Current
Controversies. Rpt. from "Civil Liberties After Boston." Defining Ideas (30 Apr. 2013).
Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 18 Oct. 2016.