Security versus Liberty

Costa Lima, Ricardo

Harrison, Steve

FDENG 301

20 June 2017

Security versus Liberty: Which should weigh more in airport profiling?

It is always been an age-old question: “What came first, the chicken or the egg?” Today we have a “chicken vs the egg” dilemma. What is most important, “security vs liberty”? In an attempt to answer that question, let us review what two persons who have an interest in this dilemma say. First we have Mr. Stuart Taylor Jr. (an American journalist and author, he also served as a Nonresident Senior Fellow in Governance Studies at the Brookings Institution and practices law occasionally.)^[1] With the opposing view, we look to Ms. Christina Fauchon “an 2004 graduate in Political Science at Pace University and immediate past president of the New York Tau Chapter of Pi Gamma Mu.”^[2]

Mr. Taylor states that the “mathematical probability that a randomly chosen Arab passenger might attempt a mass-murder-suicide hijacking-while tiny-is considerably higher than the probability that a randomly chosen white, black, Hispanic, or Asian passenger might do the same.” Mr. Taylor could not have put it better. Since 9/11, most airlines passengers, including myself, have held this perception. However, not all agree with it. For example, Ms. Fauchon in her article ““Counterpoint: The Case Against Profiling” sees no benefits in targeting one race. She states that “many terrorists have not been Arab.” With this in mind, two important questions should be considered: Should government or airport administrations support racial profiling in airports as a measure of security and protection, or should they defend the equality and presumption of innocence between citizens?

After reading and analyzing both articles there are two major concerns that came to my mind: security and liberty. Although I agree in part with Ms. Fauchon about the weaknesses of racial profiling, which results may jeopardize liberty rights or cause personal damage, I am not 100% with her, my reservation is that in some specific cases, especially at airports, the security of lives must be put above liberty. I believe that we can only have real liberty when we also have security to exercise it.

Ms. Fauchon concluded after detailed examination of history events, present facts, the United States Constitution, case law, and policy and social implications, that “racial profiling in any environment, including airports, is an unproductive and immoral policy to ensure safety”. Contrary to previous conflicts, where the enemy battlefield was clearly identified, today’s conflicts are more confusing and frightening, the enemy is no more a clear target, and as consequence “the historically discredited practice of racial profiling has again been instituted in airports.”

Ms. Fauchon reminds us that the “Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution promotes two fundamental ideals to protect against racial profiling: equality and due process.” Further, she acknowledges that the main justification for racial profiling is based upon the idea of national security, but she counterposes this notion saying that “national security, because it is not clearly defined, cannot be placed above any of the fundamental rights provided for under the United States Constitution.” No national security excuse should be acceptable in detriment of the higher interest of the citizenry rights.

While the social impacts “of alienating an entire race of people from society” in the name of safety are impossible to measure, Ms. Fauchon sees no advantage “by targeting one race”, and remembered that not all terrorist’s attacks were done by Arabs. She is worry that the normalization of profiling “could create a police state”.

On the other hand, Mr. Taylor defends that the use of new rules are justifiably if in reality it provides more safety. However, he alerts us to the illusionary safety effects that could cause heavy cost to liberty, and that airports profiling policy should not be ambiguous and disproportionate. To prevent from future mass-murder suicide hijackings, Mr. Taylor, argues that airline boarding racial profiling, done politely and respectfully, it is an important component of security. He makes clear that he is against the “hugely disproportionate” racial profiling given to African-Americans and other dark-skinned people. Racial profiling of this kind, he defends, should be considered unconstitutional, because the benefits do not justify the costs. It causes, many innocent people, to “old racist harassment” and humiliation. But in cases of hijacking, the Constitution should consider, in defense of mass-murder-suicide hijackings, Arab-looking close scrutiny because of their higher probability of hijacking.

One of the main assumption of Mr. Taylor’s article is based upon the premise that racial profiling should be considered unconstitutional: “Racial profiling of that kind (not to be confused with stopping and frisking young men in high-crime neighborhoods) should be deemed unconstitutional even when there is a statistically valid basis for believing that it will help catch more drug dealers or violent criminals”, except for [Arab-looking people] “who seek to board airliners that will be randomly questioned and searched for potential weapons as thoroughly as, and for any reason, deemed appropriate by the responsible officials”. This assumption seems to be potentially fair, but appeals to a limited group of people which could result in hasty generalization fallacy.            He concluded that Arab Americans could be affected by this special scrutiny, but other options could result in higher risks and worse results.

Both authors condemn misappropriate racial profiling and seem to be in convergence in this point, Mr. Taylor defends the unconstitutionality of the method explaining that it affects many innocent people, creating an environment of racial discrimination, Mrs. Fauchon defends that race profiling is not a trustworthy and should not be applicable. However, when security is the issue, it seems evident that the two authors diverge about the power of the government and in the interpretation of the law. Mr. Taylor is convinced that airline passengers security is reason enough to implement responsible racial profiling in airports. While on the other hand, Ms. Fauchon does not see any reason to accept such implementation, for her racial profiling of any kind is unacceptable. Acknowledging the profiling policy ambiguity, Mr. Taylor holds firm in his position that an exception should be allowed for security reasons, in contrast Ms. Fauchon is irreducible, defending that such policy is bias with great and unpredictable social effects, she even alleges that not all terrorists were Arabs.

The war against terrorism seems to have no end, we are not living in a peaceful world, and contrary to earlier major wars where the theatre of war was known, the current terrorists have no respect for anyone.

I believe, at least for now, that responsible racial profiling in airports should be used as a prevention method against hijackers. Profiling a specific group just like in a hospital emergency service screening helps identify the most serious patients and ensure that they receive prompt care.

Works Cited

Jr., Stuart Taylor, Jr., "The Case for Using Racial Profiling at Airports." The Atlantic. Atlantic Media Company, 01 Sept. 2001. Web. 30 May 2017.

Christina Fauchon. "Counterpoint: The Case against Profiling." International Social Science Review, no. 3/4, 2004, p. 157. EBSCOhost, byui.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://search-ebscohost-com.byui.idm.oclc.org/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edsjsr&AN=edsjsr.41887191&site=eds-live.

---

[1] Scott Taylor, Jr., From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuart_Taylor_Jr., assessed June 20, 2017

[2] BioMedSearch.com, Footnote 8, James Yetman, http://www.biomedsearch.com/article/Policy-point-counterpoint-profiling-at/128168187.html, assessed June 20, 2017