Racial Profiling Not Racism

Political conversations are supposed to be dispassionate. Ideally, we should be able to bandy about ideas freely, in a place where all notions and suggestions are given due consideration, deconstructed through logic, unencumbered by the weighing anchor of fragile emotion. But it rarely happens. A controversial idea will be inevitably blindsided by the accusation of intolerance toward some group. Racist. Sexist. Homophobe. Bigot.

Coming to campus tomorrow is a very controversial speaker, one who no doubt will be tagged with an aforementioned stain. Michelle Malkin is someone who advocates for racial profiling. A columnist and author, she is giving a lecture in favor of taking someone's race, religion, and national origin into account when deciding how we should treat them for national security purposes. To these ends, she claims, we were right to be wary of the Japanese in World War II, and we are right to be wary of Islamic Arabs now. Sounds a bit racist, no? Well, I agree with her.

Although it sounds like a cliché, this country is facing a renewed crisis. We've faced them before, and we will face them again. Right now, we have a specific enemy, one we can control, one we can defeat. But we can't do it by blindly ignoring who our enemy is in the name of political correctness.

Terrorists are not random people. They do not come equally from Nova Scotia, Finland, and Saudi Arabia. As much as it is difficult to confront it, our enemies today are mainly Arab, and mainly Islamic. Yes, there is the occasional Timothy McVeigh, but they do not represent the norm, if such a word can be used here.

And so I join with Ms. Malkin in advocating judicious use of racial and religious criteria in some security procedures. It's not because I bear any ill will toward any groups which might be included.

Nothing could be further from the truth. I support this idea because it is the best way to ensure the safety and the liberties of all Americans. To take notice that 16 of the 19 hijackers were Arab Muslims from Saudi Arabia is not being racist. As Dennis Miller says, it's being minimally observant.

Racism is a blot to be sparingly used. There are true racists in this world, those who call for the extermination and degradation of Jews, Muslim, Blacks, whoever. But an honest person shouldn't have to tip-toe around the issue, trying to avoid the smudge of racism. We should all be able to read, think, and talk critically, kneading ideas without having a visceral reaction of recoil and dismissal.

I've been called a racist before, and I'm sure I'll be called a racist again. But this isn't a reason to change ones views. When I look at the facts, when I look at how our world is currently constituted, I see what I see. This is a time when the overriding motives and characteristics of those who wish to kill us are inextricably sewn up with race and religion. Am we supposed to ignore this?

We have just seen yet another example of Islamic fanatic terrorism in Russia. But the world seems to be ignoring the fact that these perpetrators were Islamic extremists. Are we to ignore reality in favor of a more comforting mirage?

We attend one of the great academic institutions in the world. We should be able to listen to ideas. Tomorrow night a woman is coming here with an idea that seems offensive to some: that we should put a little extra scrutiny on someone simply because of the color of their skin. Dr. King would be dismayed. But he didn't have to face this threat.

No serious person advocates rounding up all Muslims, but to take their religion and national origin into account, to add those qualities to a list of other possible criteria, seems reasonable, and in fact, necessary. You think it's offensive and racist? That does me no good. But, you have a logical and rational reason why it's useless? Then come speak to me. I'd love to be proven wrong. I'm sure Ms. Malkin would also.

To advocate scrutiny based on race is an unpleasant necessity. But it's what my logical mind tells me. So, think about it. Civilly debate it. Listen to the arguments. Then, please, tell me why I'm wrong.

Tags: