Race and Reason
There's been a lot of chatter lately about the need for "honest" public discussion of race and law enforcement. Unfortunately, we've heard a lot more clamor for "honest" discourse than we've heard honest discourse. Perhaps a frank discussion of the complex relationship between rational judgment and racial prejudice can serve as a step in that direction.
Suppose the police receive a 911 call reporting that two men are attempting to force entry into a home. There are two obvious possibilities. First, the men may be lawfully gaining entry through a stuck door. Second, the men may be unlawfully breaking and entering. In approaching a home where such a burglary might be in progress, should it matter at all to the police officer whether the caller identified the men as black or white? Ideally, of course, the answer is "no." But is that rational?
In any such incident, the police officer must make a risk assessment. Most importantly, he must decide how likely it is that he is about to confront an on-going burglary. The greater the likelihood that a burglary is afoot, the more careful he must be. If he thinks a burglary is probable, he will be more inclined to call for back-up, prepare for possible violence, and have his adrenaline pumping than if he thinks a burglary is unlikely. For example, if the neighborhood has recently experienced a rash of burglaries, the police officer will take more serious precautions than if burglaries in the area have been scarce. This is rational behavior.
How does this relate to race? Blacks comprise 13% of the U.S. population but commit 30% of all burglaries. Non-blacks comprise 87% of the population and commit 70% of all burglaries. Thus, although 70% of all burglaries are committed by non-blacks, a black is statistically three times more likely to commit a burglary than a non-black.
It is important to note this says almost nothing about race, as such, but a lot about class. Both crime and race correlate with such factors as income and education. 33% of black families have annual incomes under $25,000, compared to only 15% of white families. Black children are twice as likely to drop-out of school as white children. Much of the disparity between black and white crime rates is explained by differences in family income and education, which in turn are largely the product of systemic racial discrimination, both past and present. This poses serious questions about our nation's social policies, but isn't of much help to the police officer who is approaching the house. He must deal with the situation at hand, regardless of the causes of that situation.
Let us return, then, to our police officer. If two men are seen attempting to force their way into a home, should a rational police officer take greater precautions if the men are black than if they are white? Sadly, the answer is "yes." This may seem shockingly racist, but it makes sense, given that we know that blacks are statistically three times more likely to commit a burglary than whites. Because race correlates in this way with burglary, the same ambiguous behavior engaged in by blacks is more suspicious than if it is engaged in by whites.
Assume, for example, that when the police receive a 911 call reporting that two men are trying to force their way into a home, there is a 50% chance that it is a burglary and a 50% chance that there is an innocent explanation. If the call reports two white men trying to force the door open, a statistician will tell us that there is a 44% chance that the men are committing a burglary, but if the call reports two black men trying to force entry there is a 70% chance that a burglary is in progress. This is a very significant difference in probabilities, and armed with this knowledge a rational police officer would exercise considerably more care if the suspects are black than if they are white.
To take this out of the race context for a moment, suppose the 911 caller identifies the two individuals by name and the police records show that the two men both have convictions for burglary. The police officer will be much more cautious in approaching the home in that situation than if the caller had identified the two men as Harvard professors. This is rational decision making.
So, when the police officer approaches the home where a burglary may be in progress, it is both rational and racist for him to think differently about the situation depending on whether the suspects are black or white. But how can the same response be both rational and racist? We tend to think of prejudice as irrational. But prejudice is not necessarily irrational. Often, groups about whom we hold beliefs we've deemed prejudiced do in fact have the characteristics on which those prejudiced beliefs are based. Blacks in our society are more likely to commit crimes than whites, women tend to be less strong than men, gays are more likely to have HIV than straights, persons of Irish descent are more likely to drink than Jews, individuals over 65 are less likely to be energetic workers than people under 40, and so on.
When we declare certain beliefs to be racist or prejudiced or sexist, we do not mean that they are necessarily irrational. We mean, rather, that it is unfair to act upon them. It is unfair for at least three reasons. First, we know from experience that in some circumstances we tend to exaggerate the importance of real differences. Rather than think carefully about the actual magnitude and significance of the differences, we blow them out of all proportion. A belief about people is racist or prejudiced or sexist when we give too much weight to the belief and therefore act irrationally on the basis of even real difference. Second, we usually condemn as prejudiced those beliefs that concern characteristics that are either largely immutable or that we believe individuals should not have to change in order to avoid discrimination, such as their religion. Third, we know that if we legitimate treating people differently on the basis of such characteristics, we will encourage thinking all these lines, thereby increasing the irrational use of these differences and fostering destructive divisions within society.
For these reasons, then, we generally prohibit employers from refusing to hire people because of their race, religion, gender, age, national origin, etc. We do this not because it is irrational for employers to consider these factors, but because we know that employers are likely to exaggerate the importance of these factors in order to make decision making easier, because we think it is unfair to deny an individual employment because of his race, religion, gender, age, or national origin, rather than because he himself has done something to justify not being hired, and because we know that such decisions, even if rational, will generate divisive and destabilizing feelings of unfairness and antagonism throughout society.
This brings me back, finally, to our police officer. Even if it is rational for the police officer to be more suspicious of two black men than two white men, do we want our law enforcement personnel actually to treat people differently because of their race? Should the police officer arrest the two black men (but not the two white men) in my earlier hypothetical because the probability of their guilt (70%) statistically satisfies the Fourth Amendment's "probable cause" standard for arrest? Should the police officer call for back-up or use handcuffs or draw his gun more readily when the suspects are black than when they are white because it is rational to do so? Is this any different from the employer who wants to disqualify all applicants of Irish descent because they are more inclined to drink than other applicants? What are the relevant similarities and differences between the police officer's situation and that of the employer?
I leave this as a question, without intending to suggest a "right" answer, because it is, in fact, a hard question. Perhaps it can provoke some "honest" discussion.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
It is now revealed that Crowley ignored three different requests from dispatch for his location, resulting in other units being called out to investigate what the dispatcher assumed as his being in some kind of dangerous situation. Also, Crowley hands out the plum jobs for Cambridge PD officers, so no wonder they were so quick to stand beside him.
So, all you procedure freaks, all those who claim beyond dispute that Crowley was correct, what do you imagine he was doing when dispatch called?
Wow heavy stuff Mr. Stone, after reading your stat- filled article on race and crime post Gates- Crowley affair and the American people wanting a "real discussion on race" I can see from my perspective and from some of these comments that racial profiling of African- Americans (esp Males) is proper law enforcment and social policy. I also believe that this country is not capable of a colorblind policy of law and order so let me interject with what Stone means in this article if you are black that the content of your character does not matter so if you are black and....
1. That if you are black and own your home
2. Own a nice car
3. Or dressed like a Hip- Hop kid
4. Or dress in a buisness suit
5. live in a white neighborhood
You are a suspect and America is perfectly comfortable with that racial arrangment considering crime stats and all, and we should just deal with accidental shootings by cops, police harrassment and brutality because we committ more crimes than other groups.Let
Seconded
A couple of questions for Mr. Stone
1. Why do we never hear of excessive use of force from African-American Officers against whites?
2. Why is it that Conservati
·Just once I would like to hear any of the leading Conservati
· The officer did his job by investigating the suspected burglary. When ID was produced, common
sense says he should have left straightaway.
· SKIP GATES FORGOT:
That Without the rarefied air of academia, TV interviews, limo's and foreign trips, police
misconduct or over reaction is a real distinct possibility for any Black Male in America.
Even if you are 58, on a cane and pose no physical threat to a officer.
· SKIP GATES FORGOT. The following:
1. Do not ask a police officer why he's stopping, or arresting you
2. Do Not ask the officer for his probable cause.
3. Do not assert your right to complain even in the nicest terms.
4. Do not ask the officer for Name & Badge #
If You Forget These Rules
4(a) The end result is almost always the same. Jail, Emergency room or the
Local Morgue.
5. DO take the ticket quietly or go quietly with the officer.
Those rules apply to everyone, not just Black Males.
Contempt of Cop (CoC) is a serious offense (to the Cop) that is punishable by up to death in all jurisdictions. CoC can happen by simply being there. It is enforced on everyone - except, maybe, pretty young women.
And, CoC, is wholly supported by every District Attorney, Judge and Attorney General in this land - unless they want to retire from office soon.
I cannot answer for Republicans, only for myself, a Democrat. Not every action that is taken against minority individuals - Affrican-Americans, Hispanic-Americans, Asian-Americans, Jews, Poles, Irish, Middle-Easterns, etc. - is the result of a racial prejudgement. Sometimes, perhaps most of the time, it is because Cops can. Simply that.
I can assure you that, born in Compton to a single white mother in the 50's and raised in South Central until the late 60's - I was often the object of Compton and LA Police inquiries - because I was in the wrong place at the wrong time just by existing.
Wow, you guys actually believe what you're spewing, don't you? I weep for the future if attitudes like yours become the norm.
According to 911, the witness identified the incident as involving two men, not black men. This is not necessarily racial bias by police who are duty-bound to investigate a reported crime. It is a witness perception problem. Even if she identified the incident as involving "two men," she witnessed two black men and believed that suspicious enough to call. Would she have made the call to 911 if it were two white men?
To infer guilt/suspicion based on general statistics of racial incidence will almost assuredly reinforce this presumption. If witnesses are more likely to call when the incident involves two black men, it will necessarily lead to catching more black men who are in actual commission of a crime. Therefore, the statistical finding that black men commit more roberies per capita is reinforced by the fact that more incidents of crime are reported when black individuals are involved.
I don't have a problem with the police investigating all reported incidents. I don't have a problem with citizens reporting crimes. I have a problem with witnesses who selectively report crimes based of the perception of an individual's race and nothing else. The statistical anomaly is not whether witnesses are overly suspicious of black men possibly committing a crime, but whether witnesses are not suspicious enough of white men. In this incident, the witness called 911. But I hope that she now calls 911 every time that she sees two white men having problems getting into their own house.
The author says: Blacks comprise 13% of the U.S. population but commit 30% of all burglaries. Non-blacks comprise 87% of the population and commit 70% of all burglaries. Thus, although 70% of all burglaries are committed by non-blacks, a black is statistically three times more likely to commit a burglary than a non-black.
He says, I repeat -- non-backs commit 70% of all burglaries!!!!!! But he concludes the police should still be more suspicious of blacks. I see a problem!
Yeah I don't get this math at all. Based on his numbers, one should expect a burglar to be non-black versus black since non-blacks commit 70% of all burglaries. That's the only number that matters. There could be only one chinese person in a town but if they (somehow) managed to commit 70% of the burglaries in the town, then whenever the police get called to a burglary they should expect see the chinese person running away with the goods. The original sizes of ethnic groups in the town are irrelevant. What the author wants to say is that blacks commit dispropotionately more crime than non-blacks. That's an issue for social planners, community organizers, city councilpersons etc. as they plan how to positively affect communities. Police as firs-reponders to the actual crime don't need to understand the dynamics that lead to the probability of the ethnicity of the criminal.
And why does he go from 13% to 30% and say that this is a multiple of 3 rather than a multiple of 2, which is more accurate?
Thank you, Professor Stone, for trying finally to begin "an honest dialogue." While no one denies that racial profiling exists, there are also rational reasons for human behavior that are always ignored in these debates because they make people uncomfortable. If I hear one more panel of Cable news talking heads talk about having "honest discussions" and then avoiding exactly that, I will give up once again on hoping for the "real" discussion to ever happen. If we don't deal with truths, thier origins and consequences , we will never get anywhere in the great national discussion of race, or for that matter, anything else!
The problem is stats aren't people. Let's say these stats, and the conclusions that the author draws from them(a black is three times more likely to commit a burglary than a non-black) are accurate. How would that justify a cop who's concerned with his own safety, being less cautions when dealing with non-black supects? Does that sound rational to you?
The author wrote: "This is a very significant difference in probabilities, and armed with this knowledge a rational police officer would exercise considerably more care if the suspects are black than if they are white."
So what exactly is it that a rational police officer would do in one case(encountering a black suspect) that he shouldn't feel the need to do in the other (encountering a white or non-black suspect)? Should he leave his gun in the car when investigating non-black suspects? Should he cuff the black suspect's hands behind his back, but cuff the non-black suspect hands in front? Should he arrest the black suspect on sight, but give a non-black suspect a chance to explain? Or should police officers just take it at face value, that they're in less danger from non-black suspects and let their guard down? I'm confused as to what should be the difference in procedure?
And what about the courts? Should the burden of proof be lowered when dealing with black defendants? Perhaps guilty verdicts against black defendants need not be unanimous.
It takes conscious effort on all of our parts to overcome prejudice of all kinds. Many reasons for it are irrational and must be deconstructed. Here is a deconstruction of Mexican immigrants.
http://bah
Not quite sure the argument holds together.
Anyway, I would hope that regardless of the race/ethnicity of the alleged perpetrators that officers take as many precautions as possible. It only takes one incident where taking fewer precautions because of the presence of white suspects for someone to get themselves killed. It would then seem "rational" for officers to assume that anyone, regardless of race, would be a serious threat until otherwise determined.
Why would a racial profiling expert be surprised at the reaction of an african american homeowner to a white police officer's unexpected intervention on his own property?
Rondo, if you listened to the police officer's discussion, his concern was that he had been told there were two men breaking into the house, and when he arrived there was only one. Part of his concern, and the reason why he asked the professor to step outside, was that he had no idea if there was another person in the house that might put him in danger, or two people in the house, that the professor did not know about, that would put both of them in danger. Pretty reasonable request, I'd say, but that's what kicked it off.
I was brought up to believe that your first response to police, as to any other person, should be respect and courtesy. To ANYONE, not just police. Give them a chance to extend it back to you. I just don't see that Professor Gates made any attempt at all to be either respectful or courteous. So it comes down to a decision about whether you want to excuse his behavior on racial terms, which is a logical argument that If some white police officers are racist, then ALL white police officers are racist. Or, you can just say that he acted like an arrogant Harvard professor, regardless of race.
Stop patronizing.
Thank you, finally someone who actually gets what was really going on! Crowley was trying to do his job and Gates was trying to pubicly compromise the image and authourity of the police. EoS people.
Well put and perfectly accurate. Unfortunately many (if not most) readers are going to try to tear this article apart, most likely using faulty and emotion-driven logic. I applaud you Mr. Stone for eloquently making a point I have believed in for years... that there is nothing inherently "racist" in racial profiling. It is merely a measure of prudence in light of research-backed statistics.
All you folks out there who want to jump on me for this, try to refrain from saying anything about my username..
"ad hominim"..
It reminds me of the debate in Phoenix about racial profiling of hispanics by the border patrol. Who else is going to be illegally entering the country in ARizona? Swedes?
Interesting.
The author takes a accurate statistic. Stair-steps his way into convoluting what the statistics REALLY mean.
You can’t say that blacks commit 30% of burglaries and then in the same paragraph say that blacks commit MORE burglaries. I don’t insinuate that this author or the arresting officer in Cambridge are “racist” or anything of that nature but I think there is something to be said about stereotypes and how people operate within them.
Consider: If every black person in this country committed a burglary, black people would STILL be committing the crime LESS than whites. Why? Because, as the author pointed out, blacks are only 13% of the population. So then, if 70% of “the act” is committed by NON-blacks, then why is (or should) this act be an attribute associated with black people. There lies your case study.
I don’t buy that officers should be more suspicious of black people through your logic because (by your numbers) blacks still commit a low percentage of the crime.
You are skewing what the math indicates. ie 10 of 100 = 10% just as 1 of 10 is 10%. But in the case of 100 people, you have FAR more people committing the crime.
I think you are not fully understanding what was being presented. The "30%" refers to that percentage of all burglaries committed across all ethnic groups. When Mr. Stone submits the "70% chance" figure referencing blacks, he is speaking to a per-capita probability among that group (blacks). His assertions are perfectly accurate IF you understand the differences in the numbers and how they relate to each other.
Perhaps Mr. Stone could have presented the information in a less confusing manner though. I hope this helps you understand the point he is trying to make.
I understand ENTIRELY what he's saying. The notion is just bogus.
Your per capita guideline is just flawed. Its a useless figure. If Blacks are committing the crime at 30% (by his count), then some group is batting at a better average then we are and perhaps THERE is where suspicion should start.
If you are "suspicious" and looking for crimes from black people because you think we commit them, then you will most assuredly find them at some point. It reminds me of the store guard that's watching the black lady so closely that the white lady robs the store blind.
Or how Black people (at a ridiculously higher rate) end up in jail for drugs although White are users at a higher rate.
Establishing a justification for "caution" is pointless in this case considering that the police report does not include a search of the house or questioning related to the 2nd "suspect". The absence of such indicates that the officers were satisfied that they were indeed speaking to the homeowner and therefore not investigating a break-in. What happened subsequently seemed to be the interaction between two men that both lost there cool. . .in the end only one of them acted within the bounds of state law.
Ahh, but which one? That, my friend, is the question that keeps this debate going. :)
The one who got his panties in a bunch because he felt a "citizen" didn't show him the proper respect his badge and gun afforded him.
If you are not a middle class or higher black male who has to justify himself on almost a daily basis, maybe you should shut up and listen...h
Why don't you give this info to that Dyson fellow who comes out of the Harrumph-hood as Grand Poobah of all things racist. Where were Sharpton and Jesse? We know it was crap when Dyson was the only one to tell us how his people are mistreated. He uses the same speech every time there is a presumption of Harrumph toward a black dude. His premise wears thin. With the knowledge that the 911 operator said she thought one male may be Hispanic, who will harrumph for Latinos?
Try Professor Dyson. See how easy it is to disrespect a Black man? You don't know him and for every Professor Dyson, there are 12 pundits who oppose his views violently. Keep a perspective
Punditry can not touch the unravelings of Mr. Dyson.
tell all this to the police in Oakland.
Freida Black Peeple
Bccmeteorites, earlier today I read earlier about the incident and Ms. Whalen said she only saw their backs, but she thought it was two Hispanic males. The call went out describing "two black males attempting to break in." Does this mean AOL omitted facts? Or is the version I read incorrect?
There should never be a double-standard used based on color...ne
Was it determined if the 70% percent in your statistics were repeat offenders? Or are you insinuating that 70% of blacks in this country are random felons? Just curious...
How about this, if race and class issues didn't exist in the first place this entire discussion would be unnecessary and no one would be the unwilling recipients of profiling based on race. All individuals should be treated equally under the provisions set forth under the law. Making excuses when it doesn't happen, for whatever reason, can hardly be considered "HONESTY."
And, yes class and color play an important role in American society insofar as how we view individuals who are not mirror images of ourselves, but is that the way it should and does it make it right? A narrow view of elements in your piece would have us think so...a narrow view. But then you would have to also consider the timely remarks of GrainOSand who poses some interesting questions about whites as well.
An "honest" discussion of race and racism should be just that---with no excuses for intolerance toward others PERIOD!!!
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
