Racial Profiling 10 Years after 9/11
Lexer Quamie
On December 19, 2010, Rep. Peter King, R. N.Y., chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security, announced that the committee would hold a series of hearings on the “radicalization of the American Muslim community” when the 112th Congress convened in January 2011. King said that he was holding the hearings because he believed that there is a disconnect between “outstanding Muslims” and those leaders who “acquiesce in terror.”
King’s announcement came as the nation was preparing to mark 10 years since the terrorist attacks of 9/11 and as Congress was once again considering legislation that would ban the use of racial profiling. His announcement prompted strong criticism from many sectors, including the civil and human rights community, which insisted that singling out the Muslim community would only fuel anti-Muslim sentiment. In a February 1 letter toHouse Speaker John Boehner, R. Ohio, and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D. Calif., signed by more than 50 national organizations, the advocacy group Muslim Advocates stated:
“Providing a public, government platform for these erroneous and offensive views has consequences. The American public takes cues from government officials. These hearings will almost certainly increase widespread suspicion and mistrust of the American Muslim community and stoke anti-Muslim sentiment. … Furthermore, a hearing that demonizes the American Muslim community will not go unnoticed by Muslims around the world and will contribute to perceptions of how the U.S. government treats Muslims. Equal treatment and respect for all faiths are among our nation’s greatest strengths and are essential to a free and just society.”
Many civil and human rights organizations urged King to either cancel the hearings or reframe them to address the issue of domestic terrorism more broadly and accurately. In a February 4 letter to King, The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights said that the hearing, as initially conceived, would do a “disservice to the seriousness of the topic of ‘domestic terrorism.’” Rather, The Leadership Conference urged, “Any congressional inquiry should be broad in scope to include all forms of domestic terror threats, and it should include violence motivated by all extremist beliefs. We should strive to identify terrorists by their behavior rather than by their religion, race, or ethnicity,”
For his part, King seemed undaunted by the criticism, insisting in a February 8 letter to Rep. BennieThompson, D. Miss.—who had asked him to broaden the scope of the hearings—that the “committee will continue to examine the threat of Islamic radicalization, and I will not allow political correctness to obscure a real and dangerous threat to the safety and security of the citizens of the United States.”
King held the first of his hearings as planned on March 10. Those attending agreed that the most moving moment of the hearing was provided by Rep. Keith Ellison, D. Minn., the first Muslim American elected to Congress, who eloquently explained why the hearing was unfair and would do nothing to help keep the United States safe:
“It is true that specific individuals, including some who are Muslims, are violent extremists. However, these are individuals—but not entire communities. Individuals like Anwar Al-Aulaqi, Faisel Shazad, and Nidal Hasan do not represent the Muslim American community. When their violent actions are associated with an entire community, then blame is assigned to a whole group. This is the very heart of stereotyping and scapegoating, which is counter-productive.
This point is at the heart of my testimony today. Ascribing the evil acts of a few individuals to an entire community is wrong; it is ineffective; and it risks making our country less secure.”
King’s subsequent hearings focused on such topics as whether Muslims were being “radicalized” in prisons, and whether terrorists were targeting U.S. military personnel on American soil. For civil and human rights activists, the King hearings represented just the latest high-profile example of how our national consensus about the unjust and ineffective nature of racial and ethnic profiling has eroded in the 10 years since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.
The drive to end racial profiling is aimed primarily at law enforcement activities that are premised on the erroneous assumption that individuals of a particular race, ethnicity, national origin, or religion are more likely to engage in certain types of unlawful conduct than are individuals of another race, ethnicity, national origin, or religion. In the months preceding September 11, a national consensus had developed on the need to end racial profiling. President George W. Bush, in his February 27, 2001, address to a Joint Session of Congress, said that racial profiling is “wrong, and we will end it in America.” He went on to make the point that ending racial profiling “will not hinder the work of our nation’s brave police officers. They protect us every day—often at great risk. But by stopping the abuses of a few, we will add to the public confidence our police officers earn and deserve.” Attorney General John Ashcroft also publiclycondemned profiling, stating that federal and local police agencies must do more to wipe out the practice of targeting minorities for arrest or traffic stops, declaring that there should be “no crime for driving while black or driving while Hispanic.”
On June 6, 2001, Sen. Russell Feingold, D. Wis., and Rep. John Conyers, D. Mich., introduced the bipartisan End Racial Profiling Act of 2001. Its enactment seemed imminent.
But as The Leadership Conference noted in its report entitled, “Restoring a National Consensus: The Need to End Racial Profiling in America:”
“[O]n September 11, 2001, everything changed. The 19 men who hijacked airplanes to carry out the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were Arabs from Muslim countries. The federal government immediately focused massive investigative resources and law enforcement attention on Arabs and Muslims—and in some cases on individuals who were perceived to be, but in fact were not, Arabs or Muslims, such as Sikhs and other South Asians. In the years that followed, the federal government undertook various initiatives in an effort to protect the nation against terrorism. The federal government claimed that these counterterrorism initiatives did not constitute racial profiling, but the actions taken—from the singling out of Arabs and Muslims in the United States for questioning and detention to the selective application of immigration laws to nationals of Arab and Muslim countries—belie this claim.”
The Leadership Conference report, released the week of the first of King’s hearings, documents how the use of racial profiling has expanded in the context of counterterrorism; fighting drug trafficking and other “street-level” crimes; and in efforts to enforce immigration laws. It makes a number of policy recommendations, including enactment of the End Racial Profiling Act. Congress introduced the End Racial Profiling Act of 2011 at the end of the year. While the prospect of its passage in the 112th Congress is slim, it remains a top priority of the civil and human rights community.
Acknowledging the divisions among groups and political fault lines in the public debate, civil and human rights activists observed that the 10th anniversary of the terrorist attacks of 9/11 nonetheless represented a real opportunity for the United States to reflect and rededicate itself to fairness, due process, and ending profiling. In a statement of principles issued to coincide with the anniversary, more than 70 national civil rights, human rights, civil liberties, Muslim, Jewish, and South Asian groups said:
“Effective counterterrorism is important to everyone, but policies that divide communities, inflame fear and violate human rights undermine our nation’s core values and our security. Some counterterrorism measures have resulted in insufficient adherence to constitutional protections and violations of human rights. Moreover, debates on issues such as border security have often fanned public fear and contributed to an atmosphere that fostered distrust, racial profiling and even hate violence. Too often, even well-intentioned public officials have exacerbated fears and misunderstandings. Indeed, some government policies enacted in haste after 9/11 have had discriminatory effects and singled out entire groups as targets of suspicion. This has left some in our communities feeling vulnerable and unsafe in their homes, at their workplaces, at religious gatherings, and in public spaces. This has been the case especially for immigrants, Muslims, Sikhs, South Asians, and Arabs.
Left unaddressed, these conditions threaten to undermine efforts to promote safety and security. We know from experience that America’s historic commitment to civil and human rights is not an impediment to public safety but rather offers a more enduring and effective approach by ensuring that all communities are not alienated or scapegoated.”
As Wade Henderson, president and CEO of The Leadership Conference has noted, while combating terrorism is important, it must be done so “without casting blame or suspicion or alienating any particular community. This means crafting national policies and partnerships with law enforcement that are based on our common American values such as respect for diversity, fairness and tolerance and fundamental civil and human rights.”
Lexer Quamie is counsel for The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights and The Leadership Conference Education Fund and specializes in criminal justice and workers’ rights issues.
