RACIAL PROFILING IS WRONG -- AND IT DOESN'T WORK

PERHAPS it should come as no surprise that racial profiling grew out
of America's ill-formed, inconclusive war on drugs, or that ethnic
profiling should now become an issue in the nation's ongoing war on
terrorism.

In war, the enemy must be defined, targeted and, if at all possible,
conceived as the other. The intuitive desire for safety and the
fundamental need for self-defense trump all else. There's no time for
nuance. If you resemble the enemy, you could be the enemy; therefore,
you are the enemy.

Such logic governed the police work of New Jersey state troopers John
Hogan and James Kenna, who pleaded guilty last week in the shootings
of four unarmed minority men stopped on the New Jersey Turnpike. We
were taught to do this, the troopers said -- to target minorities, to
make them the enemy in a sweeping attempt to halt the flow of drugs
and weapons.

The issue is not whether to profile but how. Let's leave the war talk
aside for a moment; it muddies the discussion. There is an important
distinction to be made between the kind of reckless racial profiling
committed by Hogan, Kenna and countless colleagues in New Jersey, and
the more sophisticated profiling that should now be at work in the war
against terrorism.

"I cringe when I hear people talk about conflating the two
activities," says Jack Riley, director of the Rand Corp.'s criminal
justice program and expert on counterterrorism.

"There is a real distinction between the national security threat
posed by the guy who goes on a plane with a bomb in his shoe," says
Riley, "and the threat to communities posed by drug traffickers."

Racial profiling, happily, finally, is recognized by the majority of
white Americans as both real and unacceptable. (Minorities have known
it as a reality for a long time.) Presidents now condemn it. Governors
and mayors seek to banish it. State troopers such as Hogan and Kenna
are sent packing.

Clumsy and ineffective, it casts either too wide a net and ensnares
the innocent, or so narrow a net it misses its mark.

Deborah Ramirez and her colleagues at Northeastern University's
Institute on Race and Justice have studied racial profiling for years.
They believe that a better way to target and nab criminals is to look
not at appearance but at behavior. They have the data to prove it works.

A study of the "hit" rates for the U.S. Customs Service illustrates
the difference. In 1998, customs officials used race and other
characteristics to choose whom to search at border crossings, and they
most often came up empty-handed. In well over 11,000 searches of
whites, only 5.8 percent were either arrested or found to have
contraband. In more than 6,000 searches of blacks, only 5.9 percent
were "hits." For Latinos, the percentage was a mere 1.4.

By 2000, the customs service decided to abandon racial profiling and
concentrate instead on behavior and random searches. The "hit" rate
soared. Particularly notable was the change for Latinos: One-fifth as
many searches produced nearly double the number of hits.

Why? Because profiling based merely on race is a blunt instrument,
while behavioral profiling is precise. Everything is questioned,
including itinerary, travel plans, home address, how tickets were
purchased and when.

At the same time, random searches turn up the person who is "none of
the above" but guilty, nonetheless.

There's another, pragmatic reason to be wary of racial profiling. As
Ramirez says, "It alienates the very community we need right now to
embrace."

Racial profiling is for the lazy and unimaginative. Surely, American
law enforcement can use more smarts and sophistication to target
criminals and potential terrorists. Judge not by how people look but
by how they act. Not a bad dictum for us all.