by john a. powell
St. Paul Pioneer Press, June 13, 2001

In his June 6 column, Pioneer Press editorial writer D.J. Tice equates racial profiling with what he calls "gender profiling" of men. He argues that police are justified in targeting both men and people of color for traffic stops because of higher crime rates among these populations.

In insinuating that racial profiling is no more deserving of inquiry than is the disproportionate stopping of male drivers, Tice trivializes racial profiling, which communities of color and police alike have recognized as a serious civil-rights violation.

In support of his position, Tice cites a report that we at the Institute on Race & Poverty issued on May 23 analyzing traffic stop data collected last year by the St. Paul Police Department. Tice completely misses the point of our report, and falls prey to common misapprehensions about racial profiling and other racial bias in the criminal justice system.

Tice suggests that police engage in racial profiling in the rational belief that they are more likely to find evidence of crimes this way than with nondiscriminatory tactics. This is not a position that the police themselves are advocating, and with good reason. Tice's premise that racial profiling is an effective crime-fighting technique has been proven false. More importantly, most police recognize, though Tice does not, that violating the civil rights of innocent people is inconsistent with effective and responsible policing.

In examining Tice's premise about the efficiency of racial profiling, it is important to note that vehicle stops and searches are not used as a general crime-fighting tactic. They are aimed at finding evidence of a particular type of offense: possession and distribution of illegal drugs. But targeting people of color for stops and searches is not an effective drug interdiction technique. Studies in Maryland, New York and New Jersey, and a nationwide study conducted by the U.S. Customs Service, all found that the rates at which contraband was found in searches of motorists and/or pedestrians did not vary significantly by race. Blacks were no more likely than whites to be found with illegal drugs or other contraband.

Tice also cites high conviction rates among African-Americans as evidence that targeting them is appropriate. There is no question that African-Americans are convicted of drug-related crimes at a higher rate than whites. But neither is there any question that the disparate treatment of African-Americans in the criminal justice system plays a significant role.
According to U.S. government statistics, African-Americans constitute only 13 percent of America's drug users, but they account for 38 percent of those arrested for drug offenses, 59 percent of those convicted for drug offenses and 74 percent of all drug offenders sentenced to prison. The results of these escalating disparities are nowhere more apparent than in Minnesota, the state with the greatest disparity in the nation between imprisonment rates for whites and African-Americans.

Tice's arguments contains an error more fundamental than his erroneous assessment of the efficiency of racial profiling, and that is the gravely mistaken assumption that police tactics that violate civil rights are justified if they are efficient. There are obviously countless unfair and Draconian ways to reduce crime. Certainly, there have been societies that have claimed to reduce crimes by implementing undemocratic practices. For example, public amputations of the hands of thieves by the Taliban in Afghanistan, or caning in Singapore, may well deter crime more effectively than our own criminal penalties do. However, we as a society have rejected such tactics as inconsistent with our democratic principles.

Tice states that the proper balance between "fairness to individuals" and effective and aggressive law enforcement will not be easily achieved. Because this would be difficult, Tice appears to conclude it should not even be attempted. We disagree. Racial profiling cannot be ignored. It is a violation of the civil rights of innocent people, and it is illegal under the U.S. Constitution and under state and federal civil-rights laws. Fairness to individuals is one of the key principles upon which our democracy is based. Unfairness to individuals by law enforcement officers because of their race -- otherwise known as discrimination -- is undemocratic and unconstitutional.

john a. powell is executive director of the Institute on Race & Poverty, University of Minnesota Law School.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

D.J. Tice responds:
Mr. powell refutes what he perceives to be premises and apparent conclusions in my column. But he misrepresents my position. I wrote: "America's tragic racial history, and ongoing racial tensions, would make any consideration of race in law enforcement uniquely dangerous." Not quite the hearty endorsement of racial profiling powell attributes to me.

I did, though, suggest that police, who inevitably exercise some discretion on the streets, appear to assess many indicators of suspiciousness, in addition to conduct, when deciding whether to stop or search citizens. These indicators seem to prominently include gender, and I noted there may be some uncomfortable logic in such assessments. I would not, however, go so far as powell and suggest that the disproportionate stopping of male drivers is trivial and undeserving of inquiry.

It's certainly well established that whites use illegal drugs as much as African-Americans, while suffering less prosecution and punishment. However, one reason for this is that government statistics show that whites and blacks tend to use different drugs, which are treated differently under our laws. The disparate legal status of different drugs may in some cases be unjust. But surely there are some meaningful differences between various drugs and their effects on our communities.

The very study that highlighted Minnesota's racial prison disparity a year ago also showed that Minnesota stands out for reserving prison space for violent offenders and incarcerating comparatively fewer drug offenders than other states.

I do not conclude that the effort to balance fairness and effectiveness in law enforcement should be abandoned because it is difficult. I do conclude that the difficulty and complexity should be faced.

Write Tice at or at the Pioneer Press, 345 Cedar St., St. Paul MN 55101.

---------------
Address of original story:
http://www.pioneerplanet.com/opinion/ocl_docs/66046.htm
---------------

(c) 2001 St. Paul Pioneer Press. All Rights Reserved.