Does “Profiling” Make Common Sense?

What is termed profiling is actually a prejudgment – an assumption that people or individuals falling into certain descriptive categories are more likely than others to engage in certain behavior than those who do not fit within such categories.  Prejudgment may or may not be accurate.

We all profile in a certain sense.  Here’s an example:  if we are among strangers and need help, those who smile are deemed to be more friendly than those who don’t and hence more likely to help.  That is a prejudgment against those who do not smile, is it not?

In fact, we go through – and navigate -- life by drawing upon our experiences and the judgments and lessons of others to form beliefs about all sorts of things.  People we can trust (for example, medical doctors); those we can’t (used car salesmen and politicians).  The prejudgment may be well founded or it might not be.  If it is, to term the practice “profiling” does not make it illegitimate; it is merely common sense.

Shortly after 9/11, police were called aboard a commercial airliner sitting on the runway of a major American airport because a group of dark-skinned men in Arab-style dress were chanting something in a foreign tongue.

The alarm was false.  The men were Muslim clergy reciting ritual prayers as prescribed by their religion.

The episode was condemned by many Americans as blatant bias.  But was it? 

It was only common sense for fellow passengers to be suspicious.  After all, hadn’t the highjackers been male Arabs reciting Allahu Akbar?  Of course, the reaction would not have been the same if those praying in the aisle had been Catholic nuns wearing habits.  But isn’t that the point?   They wouldn’t have fit the profile of those who might pose danger as perceived by the passengers.

But what about prejudgments that are a part of public policy?

 

Some years ago, New Jersey State Police were being criticized by the media, and liberal policymakers in particular, for targeting luxury cars for traffic stops if they were on I-95, bearing Florida tags and being driven by young black men.

The basis of the profile was that vehicles fitting it were more likely to be transporting drugs.

The assumption was probably correct, but the consequence was that many black drivers were stopped who were doing absolutely nothing wrong.  They felt singled out and, indeed, they had been.  Their displeasure with that policy (sarcastically termed the offense of DWB – driving while black) was understandable.

Yet the policy was not malicious in intent.  The purpose was to increase the prospects of catching drug-runners.  But considering the imposition the New Jersey program imposed on the many to catch (without dispute) the few, it arguably was an inadvisable use of profiling.  The gain didn’t match the cost.

 

But what should the police do when a group of young black males are seen loitering outside a luxury jewelry store at 3 a.m.?  Statistics make clear that they are more likely to be “up to no good” than, say, a similar number of black females or older Middle Eastern men.  Should profiling – common sense – heighten police suspicion of their intentions?  Again, let’s assume that the young black males pose a higher risk, but it was one of possibility, not probability.  Certainly for the police to confront them is an imposition on them.  Does that concern counterbalance the police desire to reduce the possibility of a crime occurring?  I would suggest that the profiling is quite appropriate as would be consequent police action.

    

Return to our discussion on the post 9/11 period.  Shouldn’t the Transportation Security Administration profile passengers?  The TSA denies that it does so.  So, in theory, the young mother pushing a baby in a stroller receives the same security scrutiny as the young Saudi Arabian male.  Until a mother and baby are involved in a terrorist plot, the equal treatment respects political correctness, not common sense.