“They who would give up essential
Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor
Safety.”[1] When we wage war, on terror, drugs or
anything else we affix after “war on," we simultaneously define an
enemy. It becomes an ‘us against them’
affair. “Either you are with us, or you
are with the terrorists.”[2] In the modern ‘war on terror’ we have defined
the two sides. Through the execution of
trying to procure safety and win the ‘war’ we have employed our biases and
prejudices, not all of which has been successful, beneficial, or constructive. This paper will briefly examine the causes of
biases and suggest remedies to overcome those biases. Two examples from the homeland security arena
will be used throughout.
The early part of the twenty-first
century has witnessed terrorism and attempted terrorism centered on the
aviation industry in the United States.
Examples include the September 11 attacks and the infamous underwear and
shoe bombers. In response, security
measures at airports have increased. Two
practices, employed with the Transportation Security Authority (TSA), require
the screening of passenger behavior and additional security measures of
passengers holding a passport from identified countries. These practices have resulted in charges of
racial profiling based on the bias of the TSA employee charged with ensuring
safety. One officer is quoted as saying
“They just pull aside anyone who they don’t like the way they look – if they
are black and have expensive clothes or jewelry, or if they are Hispanic.”[3] Essentially, passengers are being identified
if they look like the vision of a terrorist the officer holds. One example is from King Downing, the
national coordinator of the American Civil Liberties Union’s Campaign Against
Airport Racial Profiling. The allegation
is that he was stopped, ironically as it seems, because he is of African
descent and wears a short beard.[4] His race and appearance attracted
attention. Another example is the
security practice of additional screening for holders of passports from 14
named countries. The countries have been
labeled “state sponsors of terrorism” or “countries of interest” by the State
Department.[5] The populations of the vast majority of
countries are predominantly Muslim.
It would be nearly impossible to know
the exact reason for officers’ biases in these situations. However, we can make an educated guess. Biases arise from our experiences. They are formed and influenced by our social
interaction with family, friends, and others in our daily lives though exposure
to ideas and modeling our behavior after theirs. There also exists a complex interaction
between what we learn in social settings and an individual’s personality.[6] The collective experience of terrorism in
the United States is has been given the face of someone with darker skin and a
beard, emblems of radical Islam. This
raises issues of security in one’s personal effects and against unreasonable
search and seizures.
Another example of bias in a homeland
security situation is the case of Abdul Ameer Yousef Habeeb.[7] He was detained, which was eventually
determined to be illegal, by officers from Immigration and Customs Enforcement
while traveling to a new job in Washington DC from Washington State. His alleged crime was being from Iraq and not
registering with the government. Habeeb
was a legal refugee from Iraq and was under no obligation to register with
officials. He was stopped based solely
on his appearance. It is doubtful that
had he appeared as someone of western European descent he would not have been
stopped. Habeeb sued the government and
won, receiving an official apology from the government. The bias here again is the perceived
appearance of a passenger.
Profiling such as the examples cited
above are detrimental to safety and security.
They redirect resources from other, more constructive endeavors. This misuse of time and manpower is based on
biases; biases that can be reduced and overcome. One approach is the intergroup interaction.[8] This method seeks to add to our collective
set of experiences. Individuals are
placed in situations with those from the biased group. Security officers would then be mixed in with
members of the Arab and Muslim communities.
They would, hopefully, quickly learn that not all Muslims are terrorists. Another approach to bias reduction is
cognitive. This approach conditions individuals
to examine their own thought processes by, for example, showing statistical
data to disprove held biases. More
accurate assessments are generally obtained.[9] Both approaches, intergroup and cognitive,
can be combined in an integrated approach to bias reduction.[10]
Benjamin Franklin’s quote at the
beginning of this paper has been bandied about often in the post 9/11
world. It is true that we have given up
personal liberties in the quest to win the ‘war on terror.’ Most citizens accept this as evidenced by the
lack of rioting at security checkpoints at airports. However, we seem to have accepted it in
haste. Biases exist in nearly everyone. The amount of information can, at times, be
overwhelming and, whether for the sake of simplicity or self-preservation, must
then be categorized for efficiency of cognitive storing and recall. However, there are methods and approaches to
reduce or extinguish biases. This begs a
response as to why such programs seem to lack effective training. Security programs appear to have been
employed too hastily with training forsaken for immediate safety. It is treating the symptoms, not the
cause. It is treating our fears, not
defeating terrorism. Through an unbiased
approach to homeland security, we can know that the liberties we have given up
are truly for our security.
[1] Franklin,
Benjamin. (1756). Pennsylvania Assembly:
Reply to the Governor. Votes and Proceedings of the House of
Representatives, 1755-1756, 19-21.
[2] http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010920-8.html
- President George W. Bush Address to a Joint Session of Congress and the
American People. September 20, 2001.
[4] Dwyer,
Michael. (2007, Dec. 3). ACLU Official
Alleges Racial Profiling at Airport.
NBCNews. Retrieved from http://www.nbcnews.com/id/22087842/#.Usli8fRdU8I
[6] Farley,
John E. (2000). Majority-Minority Relations, 4th Ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
[8] Paluck,
E.L. & Green, D.P. (2009). Prejudice
Reduction: What Works? A Review and Assessment of Research and Practice. Annual Review of Psychology, 60,
339-367.
[9] Schaller, M.,
Asp, C. H., Roseil, M. C., & Heim, S. J. (1996). Training in statistical
reasoning inhibits the formation of erroneous group stereotypes. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 22(8), 829-844.
[10] Paluck,
E.L. & Green, D.P. (2009). Prejudice
Reduction: What Works? A Review and Assessment of Research and Practice. Annual Review of Psychology, 60,
339-367.
No comments:
Post a Comment