On "Profiling"

Much has been said recently about Arizona's new anti-immigration law and the word "profiling" has come into the public's consciousness. But what is this "profiling?" Last night, on The Rachel Maddow show, Maddow argued against the Arizona law and racial profiling. She profiled (couldn't resist the pun) some proponents of the new Arizona law. Among those was Scott McInnis, who is running for governor in my home state Colorado under the Republican ticket. She showed a clip of him in 2001 when he was a Congressman talking about profiling. I believed she mischaracterized what profiling is, so I wrote a letter. That letter follows below:

Dear Dr. Maddow,

On your show you played a clip of Representative Scott McInnis saying in 2001: "Once we begin to use ethnic profiling as a component, one of several components to build a profile, I think it is very legitimate."

Now, what he said is entirely correct and legitimate, from a law enforcement perspective. There is a difference between general law enforcement profiling and the more narrowly defined racial or ethnic profiling. The former builds a description of a possible suspect using several factors, one of which may be race, as Scott McInnis said. The latter, racial profiling, is just one of the factors that may be used to build a greater profile. Yes, using racial profiling alone is discriminatory, but, again, that is not what McInnis said, as you implied. He clearly said it is "one of several components." He may have said something more damning, but that clip isn't it.

In the interest of disclosing all my biases and short-comings, I am a Coloradan, and a registered Democrat. I doubt I would vote for Mr. McInnis, but what he said in that clip I agree with. I am not a member of the law enforcement community. What I know about profiling comes from society-at-large. It seems obvious to me that profiling must be used in law enforcement in order to narrow down suspects. But racial profiling used alone is indeed discriminatory.

Thanks,
Sean

Tonight, she again implied what Scott McInnis said in 2001 referred to discriminatory racial profiling. Oh well. I admit, I could be wrong. Perhaps in the parlance of law enforcement, "profiling" is never used anymore. Perhaps an FBI Profiler is never called a "Profiler." Perhaps an individual whose actions and appearance are suspicious is no longer being "profiled." But that's technical language. For the rest of us, "profiling" includes a much broader definition. And I don't think I'm being pedantic about this. Yes, using racial profiling alone is discriminatory, but in general, profiling is not. I'd hate the day would come where the pendulum swings too far the other way. I'd hate for the day to come where cops would be afraid to arrest or act on something that looked suspicious because they might be accused of "profiling." Maybe, in certain cases, that day is already here.

To be absolutely clear again, being stopped simply for being Hispanic or Black or Asian or whatever is discrimination and illegal. But IF that information adds to a greater profile, it should ABSOLUTELY be used. It is a shame the media cannot use more precise language when describing racial profiling.