Why can't President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder do more to ban racial profiling in the United States?
Surely, more so than any of their predecessors, they can understand
the injustice and humiliation racial profiling victims feel when they
are treated as suspect because of the color of their skin.
Yet, after four years in office, they have made no revisions to the
Justice Department guidance regarding the use of race in federal law
enforcement issued by Attorney General John Ashcroft in 2003.
Ashcroft's guidance was deficient: though it expressly banned racial
profiling by federal law enforcement agencies, it left broad exemptions
for national security and border integrity investigations.
The Obama administration's failure to close these loopholes has given
the FBI a green light to implement a program that uses crass
stereotypes about what types of crimes racial and ethnic groups commit
to justify mapping entire communities based on race and ethnicity. The
FBI has argued that racial mapping is no different than a local police
chief putting push pins on a map to see where different crimes have
occurred. But the FBI is mapping people, with no evidence anyone within
the communities it tracks has committed any crime at all. This is
racial profiling on a nationwide scale.
When the ACLU released the FBI records detailing this abusive program
(which we obtained through requests under the Freedom of Information
Act), we wrote to Holder. We explained that because the American
criminal justice system is founded on the idea that government must have
probable cause to effect a constitutional arrest, individualized
suspicion of criminal activity, not guilt by association, is the rule.
Holder never responded.
Ashcroft prohibited the use of race "to any degree" in most
spontaneous law enforcement decisions and limited the use of race in
specific investigations to "trustworthy information ... that links
persons of a particular race or ethnicity to an identified criminal
incident, scheme, or organization.
The only explanation we received was a letter from the FBI that
referenced the Ashcroft guidance and earlier guidance from 2008, before
Obama took office, to argue that it was acting within federal
regulations.
The FBI suggests its mapping program was designed to protect racial
communities, But it is hard to see how tracking the growth of the Black
community in Georgia would protect it, for example, from so-called
"Black separatists," when overwhelming statistics from the Justice
Department revealed that blacks are mostly victimized by whites in hate
crimes.
Yet, based on the information the ACLU gathered, the FBI is not
tracking white communities to the same degree. (But even that, too is
wrong because it undermines individualized suspicion as the basis for
investigation.) In contrast, FBI records don't show any acts of violence
by Black separatist groups -- against anyone -- for more than 20 years.
In a more revealing line, the FBI told us that mapping an entire
community of people based only on their race was "no different than
limiting a manhunt to the description given by an eyewitness." This
flimsy argument shows the constitutional damage of racial profiling -
that if one person of a particular race commits a crime, all persons of
that race should be treated as suspect. Guilt by association is
antithetical to American values.
It is not just the FBI that has embraced racial profiling.
Behavioral detection officers with the Transportation Security
Administration (TSA) recently came to the ACLU to report that colleagues
at Boston's Logan Airport were racially profiling airline passengers in
an effort to boost arrests for drug and immigration violations. TSA
officers were also previously caught profiling at airports in Newark and
Honolulu. What could be the purpose of identifying such communities on
a map except to treat them differently when the FBI is making
investigative decisions?
It is long past time for Obama and Holder to end this humiliating,
ineffective, and unlawful practice. The Justice Department guidance
regarding the use of race should be amended in the following ways:
• Close the loophole for national security and border integrity
investigation. It also sends the wrong message to all law enforcement
officers that racial profiling is sometimes okay.
• Prohibit profiling based on religion and national origin, which is no less an affront to the Constitution than profiling based on race and ethnicity.
• Explicitly state that the ban on racial profiling applies to data collection, intelligence activities, assessments and predicated investigations. Intelligence practices like racial mapping threaten entire communities.
• Include enforceable standards. The current guidance has no enforcement mechanism.
• Expand the racial profiling ban to all state and local law enforcement agencies that receive federal funding.
These reforms are long overdue, and will only make law enforcement more effective, and our communities safer.