Racial Profiling

The more we learn about human behavior, the more it seems we are governed in large part by fear. Unfortunately the conservative movement of the 20th Century understood and capitalized on this idea. A person’s most cherished feeling is the safety of themselves and people they love. To me, this is the most basic of human feelings. (Perhaps I am talking about the id?) In many ways, this is the basis for a lot of political ideas, and it illustrates a fatal flaw in the ability to change a person’s mind in that arena.

Suppose we say ideas of fairness and justice are not at the same basic human level as the need for safety. (I guess they are the superego?) If this is the case, people will think highly of the lofty goals of fairness and justice unless they interfere with safety. I believe this is the driving force behind our politics. Conservatives realized this Freudian notion of reducing political talk to appeal to the id, and I believe it is a major reason why today we find it acceptable to even discuss singling out someone because of their race. Now all lawmakers need to do in order to accomplish almost anything they want is say our safety is at threat. This visceral appeal completely blinds any rational or logical follow-up.

Enter racial profiling. People know it is wrong to single out an Arab because of her race in the housing context because it is unfair and unjust. Ideas of racial harmony in housing do not really threaten our safety (of course one can come up with an example but that is not the point), so most people correctly view racial discrimination in housing as a matter of fairness and justice. But crime is different because the ideas appeal to our need for safety. Say a person says to a group of people, “What would you think if Proctor and Gamble only interviewed white people for their jobs?” Most people would find something wrong with that. What if Proctor and Gamble defended themselves by saying, “It is our experience that white people excel in these open positions. We are not saying all white people are good at this position or that all non-white people are unable to perform this position; we just find it more efficient only to target white people. Why would we interview everyone when we know from our history that white people will outperform everyone else?” Most people would see this as completely unfair and unjust. Of course the white people P&G targeted in the past were successful. P&G only targeted white people in the past! Plus, only white people had the access to education and other opportunities to put them in the situation of being able to succeed. Is it any wonder white people have been successful at P&G? A feedback loop of self-justification is no reason to enact this policy and the courts would shut it down in a second. Why is it we think this is any different from crime?

It seems it is because of the aforementioned visceral nature of crime politics. People view it as unfair only to target Arabs, but if it is for reasons to keep us safe, our minds militate toward safety. We look around and see all kinds of historical institutional barriers to opportunity keeping blacks behind in this country. We know for a fact that a lack of education leads to a reduced ability to compete in the job market. An inability to secure stable work leads to poverty. Poverty leads to crime. Whites partake in drugs just as much as blacks in this country. Whites drive more cars than blacks in this country. Statistically there are more drugs in “white” cars than “black” cars (number of “white” cars on road > number of “black” cars. White drug use = black drug use. Therefore number of “white” drugs on road > number of “black” drugs on road). So why do we eschew empirical data telling us racial profiling is ineffective in favor of a feeling of safety? Why do we require so much thought and deliberation on issues such as trade policy but totally accept any anti-crime measure that makes us feel better?

I think the reasoning has to do with the otherization of criminals. We can explain away harsh measures taken against criminals because we can always say they were not like us. They were just a bad apple and a bad apple should not spoil the bunch. I believe this thought process is a prominent reason behind the delay of several social justice efforts. I also believe this thought process is the reason civil rights advocates should think about altering their strategies. The demographics of the country are clear; and in order to effect change, a movement must change the minds of at least a certain percent of the dominant white majority. I feel the way to do this is to appeal to their visceral level and not just their social justice level. Saying unfairly targeting blacks is wrong appeals to their superego, but their id is still comfortable in its life. It still feels safe and feels no threat from the unfair treatment of blacks. And all they have to do to appeal to their confirmation bias is seek out one or two examples showing blacks are in fact criminal in nature and the most likely to have drugs. This further harms social change because it reaffirms their views of the effectiveness of the criminal justice system. Sure we saw the police harass a well-dressed black lawyer, but it is an acceptable cost in order to keep us safe.

For these reasons I think the best strategy against racial profiling is a comprehensive discrediting of both the criminal justice system itself and the war on drugs without looking through a racial lens. It seems the information is out there to show how completely corrupt so much of it is and how much advantage someone at the top of the socioeconomic ladder has. Even the studies about racial profiling are corrupt (or at least flawed to the point of irrelevance). It is insane to think self-reporting by police officers will result in anything other than what they want to report. The fact that profiling was found in that case should indicate just how pervasive it is. I say no racial lens because of the otherization phenomenon. Of course racial minorities feel the brunt of these policies, but a message must appeal to a person’s id to be most effective. The white power structure, through no fault of their own, simply is not able to empathize with certain feelings of minorities. This must be recognized. Instead of saying, “look how unfair this is for minorities!” a more effective message could be, “This happens to people like you. You thought mistreatment only happens to the downtrodden, but it happens everywhere. The entire system is set up to only benefit the privileged few.” I realize the ACLU attempted to do this by showing the mistreatment of what most would consider “normal” people, but the ACLU itself is otherized by society. People will just think the ACLU handpicked people to prove their “far out” points. And any mention of race will automatically bring rejection of your entire point from a large number of people who think blacks have been complaining far too long.

Instead of falling into the trap of arguing why the prohibition of drugs is unjust and responding to the reasons drug warriors give for their illegality (the debate is framed around drugs affecting our safety), argue why it is nonsensical and hypocritical. Show the racist and big money interests leading to their banishment in the first place. Get people to think about why they draw arbitrary lines between marijuana and asprin / tobacco / caffeine / alcohol / antidepressants. Show how regulated, mature use is not antithetical to safety in the same way as the previously mentioned drugs. Show how the government classifies marijuana as a class 1 drug with no medical value whatsoever. Then show the many recent medical breakthroughs. Then show the incentives for pharmaceutical companies to lobby the government to keep drugs illegal. Then show how much money private prisons make by locking drug offenders up.

Show how OJ got off because he was rich (as an added bonus, you subtly get racist whites on your side). Show how we would be in less of an economic disaster if the criminal justice system used its resources on stopping the elites from manipulating the economy in their favor as opposed to focusing on black youth. Show how few times a police officer has been prosecuted for perjury in the same way a normal citizen would when they are shown to lie on the stand. Show how few officers have been prosecuted for a person dying in their custody. Show how few officers have been indicted for assault and battery in the same way a normal citizen would. Show how officers hide behind the “thin blue line”. Show how officers routinely let other officers violate the law. Show how local police are often simply a revenue boosting operation.

If people lose their faith in the system, their feelings of safety derived from that system vanish. This affects their base desires and leads to change.