RACIAL PROFILING NOT WIRED INTO BRAIN! That's the headline of this piece on a study appearing in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. I don't pretend to know everything about this study from the summary of it in the SF Chronicle, nor would I have any credentials for criticizing it even if I did. Perhaps there is some burning question about neurology and psychology that is addressed by it. I don't know. But the point of the article, as far as I can see, is to emphasize that we now have proof that, in the words of the study's authors, "our brains are not designed to make us racists," and that "we're not an inherently racist species."
Thank God this has finally been demonstrated. The next time I meet someone who insists that racism is all part of God's plan for humanity, I'll be able to adduce a clinical study to refute him. Is there, in fact, anyone who holds this opinion about the make-up of the human brain, that it is inherently, genetically, irrevocably racist? I very much doubt it, but then again, there are some weirdoes out there, I guess.
Again, I don't know about the study itself, but the article at least rests on the notion that the terms "racism" and "racial profiling" mean exactly the same thing. They don't. Sure, the practice of racial profiling (which in common parlance would include "profiling" ethnic groups as well) can stem from racism, and it can result in racist actions. But, to quote the study, "categorizing" people by race is a "reversible byproduct of cognitive machinery." In other words, to take a topical example, our "cognitive machinery," rather than our inherent racism, allows us to arrive at the conclusion that 100% of the 911 suicide bombers were Arab muslims who made frequent trips back and forth between countries associated with Al Qaeda and received wire transfers of money from these places. If "racism" simply means the cognitive capability of making this observation, then the term has very little meaning. But it doesn't mean that, and I think that most people realize it, clinical study or no.
The point has been made, from both the left and from the right, that "affirmative action" and "racial profiling" are essentially two sides of the same coin. On one side, the result is beneficial to members of the profiled group, while on the other side it is not. As a matter of logic, it doesn't make much sense to be categorically opposed to one while being categorically in favor of the other, though that seems to be a view that many people firmly believe they hold. With different, data, our cognitive machinery might spit out a different profile. But facts are stupid things, to coin a phrase, and we can't decree that they be changed in order to fit our ideological fantasies. As Michael Kinsley says, in reference to Mohammad Atta and his murderous crew, "are we really supposed to ignore the one identifiable fact we know about them?" The question answers itself.
Now there is another article in SF Gate, which says that the case of John Walker has "broadened our horizons," "making racial profiling a bit passe." The argument is that because an idiotic white kid fell in with this worst of all "bad crowds," our cognitive machinery can no longer process data about "Arab terrorism" and come up with "Arabs" or "Muslims" as likely suspects.
The next Al-Qaeda cretin may not be the Mohammad you had in mind, but a guy named John. Or Bob. Or Tom. That's what we can learn from John Walker... They're the ones of whom to be wary, not the many innocent Arabs and Muslims of America.
It's an obvious exaggeration, but to the extent that it is true, my cognitive machinery tells me that the appropriate response is precisely the opposite of that wished for by the opponents of "profiling" as an element in terrorism prevention. We need to redouble our efforts to investigate and scrutinize organizations like the Mill Valley Islamic Center (where John Walker got his start as a rookie for the Islamist cause.) Sure, if your son Bob or Tom starts visiting the local mosque, wearing flowing robes, and saying "from now on I want everyone to call me Suleyman," your cognitive machinery should tell you to discourage him from continuing his "journey of self-discovery" in a terrorist training school in Yemen, even if he's not ethnically Arab. But it's probably still safe to let Harry and Edna Henderson from Ohio keep their nail-clippers when they fly to visit their kids in Denver for Christmas.
Posted by Dr. Frank at December 11, 2001 05:42 PM | TrackBack