Profile on policing doesn't yet add up
So it turns out I'm an oppressed minority.
At least that's one possible interpretation of
My first reaction on learning this was the classic, all-American response: Who can I sue?
There's a problem with my lawsuit, however: The sad fact is that males commit vastly more crimes than females. Plus, we tend to be the ones behind the wheel ("No, honey, I'll drive"). Whether it's hormones, genetics or an oppressive matriarchy that forces men to behave badly, I don't know. But I do know that if police officers didn't go after men disproportionately, if men and women were stopped, searched and arrested at equal rates - that is, 50-50 - then the cops wouldn't be doing their jobs.
And that, in brief, is the problem with Northeastern's study: It appears to say a lot, while in truth it explains nothing.
The headlines seem shocking. Of the 366 police departments and police jurisdictions in the state, 249 - that is, fully two-thirds - give non-whites a disproportionate number of traffic citations. Even worse, every community of any significant size is at fault. It looks to be prima facie evidence of widespread racial profiling.
But is it?
There's little question that racial profiling occurs. During hearings at the State House in July 2000, many, including state Sen. Dianne Wilkerson, gave specific and troubling personal stories about the crime, if you will, of "driving while black." Indeed, Northeastern's analysis grew out of legislation passed in the wake of those hearings. The goal, legislators said then, was to find out just what was going on.
Four years later, we still don't know.
In part, that's because of methodological problems. As a
number of police officials have pointed out, there's an issue of how one measures "disproportionate." In the town of
Not necessarily. The
It should, a point Northeastern acknowledges and for which
it attempted to adjust. Yet when several towns - including
Methodology aside, however, there's another serious problem with the study. The 2000 legislation was limited in scope. Not only did it limit itself to traffic citations (traffic stops were not tracked), but it also never permitted investigators to ask the reasons motorists were stopped and cited.
Why does that matter? Because disparate treatment alone is not proof of racial profiling.
Suppose, for example, that witnesses more frequently identify non- whites as possible perpetrators of a crime. Or suppose, at the request of residents, that police departments post extra cops in crime-ridden neighborhoods (which tend to be poor and non-white). In both cases, non-whites would end up being stopped more frequently than whites. In both cases, however, that disparate treatment is understandable and perhaps even desirable.
Edward Flynn, the state's secretary for public safety, knows all of these theoretical objections. Yet he also argues that racial profiling is a real problem. Good policing, he says, is "consensual" - it requires the cooperation of the communities being policed. If the law-abiding residents think they are being unfairly targeted (and, according to national surveys, minorities overwhelmingly believe police treat them differently) , community policing is undermined. "If we cannot retain community trust and confidence, we cannot ultimately be effective," he says.
That's why Flynn has made a decision bound to upset many. As permitted by the 2000 law, he's going the next step. Starting in January, he plans to require police in all of the 249 departments identified by the study to begin collecting information about all traffic stops and other police actions as well as the reasons those stops occur.
It may be an onerous requirement, but Flynn is doing the right thing here. As little as Northeastern's data tells us, it clearly indicates that something is going on. Is that something grounded in racism or proper policing? Is it departmentwide or confined to a few rogue cops? Better information, Flynn argues, will help answer those questions.
Still, it's frustrating. Northeastern's study has been four years in the making and it will take another two or so before the data are good enough to draw conclusions and, more importantly, begin to make some changes. For those who believe themselves unfairly targeted, who have been pushing for some reform, it's hard to be told to keep on waiting.
Talk back to Tom Keane at tomkeane@tomkeane.com.