Back to Basics

One thing that saddens me about the TSA security controversy is that we’re missing a great opportunity.  Sure, the insanity of patting down three-year-old, blonde-haired lasses and octogenarian grandmothers with prosthetics has caused a great backlash, as more and more people are realizing that our government’s common-sense-blind approach is born of a deadly allegiance to political correctness.  In fact, I’ve even heard a few usually very careful pundits float the idea that we should think about profiling Muslims.  Unfortunately, though, they invariably drop the ball in the debate.

The problem is that they don’t believe they occupy the moral high ground.  Instilled with the idea that advocating “racial profiling” (a propaganda term) amounts to bigotry, they generally back down as soon as someone looks askance at their suggestion.  This is especially frustrating to me because I’ve long been promulgating an airtight argument that, not only refutes the racial-profiling propaganda, but also illustrates why the moral high ground actually belongs to our side. So I’ll present the argument again in the hope that it will now receive a better reception.  Here it is:

Actually, what is discriminatory is to not profile Muslims.  Why?  Well, consider that group-specific profiling is nothing unusual; for instance, law enforcement looks more suspiciously upon men and young people because those groups commit an inordinate amount of crime.  Yet do we hear complaints of “sex profiling” or “age profiling”?  Of course not, as we know that such practices are just common sense.  But if this standard can be applied to men and youth, it’s only fair and just to apply the exact same standard to all other groups that commit an inordinate amount of a given crime.  And when we refuse to do so — when we say that certain groups must receive a special dispensation from life’s realities because they enjoy privileged status — that is where the real discrimination lies.  That is what’s unfair.  That is a travesty of justice.

Now, contrary to popular belief, fellow politics wonks and pundits, no one has to pay me royalties when using the above.  There’s no truth to that rumor whatsoever.  In all seriousness, though, the argument isn’t the greatest thing since Aristotle; it’s just common sense.  And this is why the fact that it’s so uncommon is so distressing.  Because the argument does have one great flaw: It only works when used.

Of course, if we want to deepen understanding of profiling further, we could point out that there’s no such thing as “racial profiling.”  Rather, there are only two types of profiling:

Good profiling and bad profiling.

You see, profiling is simply a method by which law enforcement can determine the probability that an individual has committed a crime or has criminal intent.  And when making this determination, good profiling considers many different factors, such as dress, behavior, the car being driven, tattoos that might be displayed, sex, age, race and ethnicity.