They want skin color, clothing, height, scars, and so on. I’m not sure whether there’s any opposition to using race to describe individual suspects. When making random stops, there is less agreement. I think the major division is between those who believe:race should be included when statistically significant, or race should never be included If I’ve left anything out, please add it. I’m hoping that my own view (that race should be included only if it’s significant, and that police should be monitored closely for signs of prejudice and discrimination) has not misled me once again into confounding my own views with what is generally held, or into misrepresenting anyone’s position. User:Ed Poor——————————————————————————–I rearranged some of the paragraphs and tried to tighten up the definition of “racial profiling”.
Ed PoorCouple of suggestions from — April:Include citations for the “some studies” which suggest X. Set off US-specific text (DEA, ACLU, etc) with “In the United States. . . ” ——————————————————————————–Good suggestions, April. Also, the blurring of the distinction between “race as main factor” and “any use of race as a factor” may be more significant than I at first thought.
In today’s N. Y. Daily News, an article used the term racial profiling in both senses, explicitly mentioning its definition in each case. The article, notably, took no note of the shifting use of the term. The first mention was a citizen complaint that police were using race as the “top factor” in making stops.
The second mention was the wording of a proposed regulation which specifically forbids “any” use of race in making stops. It reminds me of stories I had heard 15 years ago of citizens groups who apparently want the police to go easier on minority (esp. black) criminals — a kind of an affirmative action applied not to students or employees but to wrong-doers. My personal preference is the “level playing field” concept, in which all persons — students applying to school or getting grades or diplomas; job applicants or employees seeking promotions — would be judged solely on their ability not their race. Oddly enough, some advocates of “affirmative action” call my pet concept “racist”.
Go figure. Ed Poor, Tuesday, April 9, 2002I can explain the latter point of view to you, though my own opinions, while not contradictory, are somewhat more complex than either side of the usual dichotomy on the affirmative action issue. At any rate, the “standard” objection, if you will, to the point of view described above is that the biases are already built-in long before students are tested or applying for jobs. In other words, they argue, affirmative action is a pallative measure, designed to “level the playing field” by making up for the biases which (they presume) have been holding some groups back since childhood. A possible solution addressing both sides of this debate might be to pair an ending of affirmative action with a major effort to level the initial playing field; that is, seeing that minority youngsters have greater access to good nutrition, stable neighborhoods, good education, and good access to career services such as job training, et cetera.
Were that done, there would then be no argument for needing measures at later stages to correct imbalances, as the imbalances would have been corrected much earlier. Further, this treatment need not be restricted to minority youngsters, but could be broad-based to anyone who might not normally have such access. — April, Tuesday, April 9, 2002 To add to this, I once wrote an essay that rambled much more than April’s succinct summary. My view was that in any given group of humans (black, white, etc), you probably have the same proportion of personality types. Let’s assume that 50% of any given group is normally motivated, and 25% are highly motivated, and 25%