The East Palo Alto police department recently has been inundated with burglary and breaking and entering reports. The vast majority of witnesses say that they saw black males leaving the properties. The police chief of East Palo Alto, following her logic, instructed her police officers to look for suspicious middle-aged black males and ask who they were. This incited an uproar, and there have been multiple marches and protests about the "racial profiling" that the police department is engaged in. This is not racial profiling, it is merely looking for a suspect based on eyewitness reports and the descriptions of the perpetrators thereof.
If the police department was arresting minorities because they thought that such people may have committed a crime, but had no evidence to support this, then that is racial profiling, but looking for suspects based on criteria which is based on eyewitness descriptions is good police work. It would not make sense to question Hispanic females rather than black males when all reports point to black males committing the crimes.
However, recently, the East Palo Alto police chief went to a black church to apologize for the misunderstanding, but they shunned her, and refused to hear her point of view, and dismissed her as a racist. The lieutenant, a black woman, argued for the chief, and said that what she was instructing her officers to do was in no part racist.
The debate ensues, and is drawing the attention of the NAACP, ACLU and other minority rights organizations, outraged at the racism that the police department is allegedly proliferating.
In my opinion, this is ridiculous. Nothing is wrong with searching for suspects based on eyewitness reports, and this whole fiasco should never have happened.
(by the way, the article linked to in the title is an argument that it is racial profiling)
11 comments:
I think that if the only search criteria was just "black male" than it might be racial profiling. There are thousands of black males in East Palo Alto and searching for them based on "suspicion" is a little much. But if the report had black male with other features, like facial features or other distinguishing marks and black male was just a part of that longer description, then no, it's not racial profiling.
I completely argree with Ian. I understand the controvery and why people are upset, but I'd have to agree that it seems like a bit of a stretch to call that racial profiling or racism. But, I suppose there probably is a way to be more diplomatic about such situations.
I agree. How can anyone be labeled as "suspicious" just from one simple description? If there were more specific details listed then it is less likely others would take offense to it. But then again, if they were just looking for "white males", I doubt anyone would label that as discrimination. Although it is ridiculous that the church actually shunned the chief even apologizing for the misunderstanding. The church was being considerably sensitive to the issue and should have viewed it from the police's side as well.
well, sometimes I think that the people who yell "racist!" the loudest is often a little racist themselves. They're a little too race-sensitive, in my opinion. Maybe someday we'll get to the point where race is completely irrelevant. A time when affirmative action is no longer needed and there is racial equality everywhere. But then again, maybe that's a bit unrealistic. As long as there are differences among people, I think human nature will make us bigots. But whatever...
I agree with Ian that the simple description of "black male" is not enough to go randomly pulling people off of the streets. following eyewitness information is good police work, but "black male" is still a bit vague. I can hardly imagine police pulling over every white male if "white male" had been the only description.
I also agree with Sara in that it was ridiculous that the church refused to listen to the police chief's apology. We can never get to resolve our problems if we completely refuse to acknowledge the other side's arguments.
I do not think that this incident is racism/racial profiling. I think the police department was just doing its job to protect the citizens. What if those guys were really up to no good and the police didn't do anything?
Also, I didn't like the way the people at church reacted when the chief tried to apologize. She tried to apologize and what did they do? They shunned and called her a racist... at church. Talk about being hypocrtitical... Didn't the church teach them to forgive and not judge people?
i agree with angela. the media's is just trying to pick a story thats not 1. about the economy 2. gay marriage 3. violence 4. more economy 5. how bad our nation is doing...economy wise.....
everyone just needs to chill. OBVIOUSLY when Obama mentioned bringing a puppy to the white house during his speech, the media totally spun it into something that has been blown out of proportion
Race is such an arbitrary distinction. It's pretty much just as valid to separate people by the color of their eyes as by the color of their skin.
Also affirmative action is a racist policy.
"I have a dream that my four little children will one day be judged not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character". Couldn't agree more with this quote.
Telling officers to question suspicious looking African American males is arguably not racist but is almost definitely bad police work. Really? Are you going to have your officers talking to every "suspicious" looking African American male they see in the Palo Alto area. That seems to me like a stupid comment to be made a police chief. Just imagine the uproar if police started harassing all the people with blue eyes they saw after a man with blue eyes was seen robbing a building. Facts are questioning large numbers "suspicious" individuals based on a widely spread charachteristic is generalizing and profiling.
It seems as if reactions to racism these days have become overblown. Should the police simply have neglected to mention the suspects' races simply out of fear of being accused of racial profiling? No. It was mentioned earlier, and I fully agree that this would definitely not be major news if it were a group of white men, or probably even any other race at that.
I agree that this shouldn't be considered "racial profiling," because afterall, witnesses did say they saw black males. What would be the point in questioning anyone other than a black male? The questioning of black men isn't based on an irrational assumption; it's based on fact. Although I don't think it should be called racism in any way, I do think it is a bit of a stretch to go and question every suspicious black male. I think the police should wait to question anyone before they get more facts or a better physical description. If skin color is the only information they have, I can understand why people would get upset about the police questioning random black men.
Post a Comment