Comment on the rejoinder of Henry and Tator to Satzevich and Shaffir.

• Author: Melchers, Ronald-Frans
• Position: Article by Frances Henry and Carol Tator in this issue, p. 65, and Vic Satzewich and William Shaffir, Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice, vol. 51, p. 199, 2009 - Symposium on Racial Profiling and Police Culture

From their first paragraph of their "Rejoinder to Satzevich and Shaffir," Henry and Tator (2011) make a number of statements about Satzevich and Shaffir's (2009) article for which I can find no evidence in the text of the article itself: that it presents a perspective on the nature of racial profiling rather than on what is the primary focus of the article--police discourse of denial regarding racial profiling. Satzewich and Shaffir (2009) draw no conclusions as to the existence or nature of racial profiling. That is not their purpose in this article. Henry and Tator (2011) further claim that Satzevich and Shaffir (2009) critique the work of Tanovich and Wortley, where there is only citation and reporting. The rejoinder also claims that that Satzewich and Shaffir (2009) critique qualitative studies that rely upon reported experiences of racial profiling (Henry and Tator 2011), when there is no such critique proffered. They state that Satzewich and Shaffir (2009) believe the emphasis in understanding racial profiling should be put on the subculture of policing. This is the main topic of the Satzewich and Shaffir paper, but that hardly constitutes a dismissal or denigration of other emphases. Further into the rejoinder, Henry and Tator (2011) claim that "Satzewich and Shaffir tend largely to ignore the significance of racial, cultural, institutional, and systemic racism" (67). This broader issue was not the topic of their paper.

Later yet, Henry and Tator (2011) claim "Satzewich and Shaffir ... maintain that racial profiling takes place in policing without the presence of bias or prejudice because racial profiling is part of the overall profiling done by police, who routinely use a wide variety of descriptive characteristics" (68). I would imagine the original authors would take exception with this characterization of their view. In fact, they report the contrary view from their interviews. Satzewich and Shaffir (2009) write that "racial profiling is perceived by the police as one in a series of activities that define their work (and) ... occurs even in the absence of officers who may be inclined to prejudice or discrimination against members of visible minorities." Henry and Tator eagerly seize on this statement to conclude "police themselves, at least in their sample, admit to racial profiling because they believe that this practice is a natural part of their work as police officers and managers." But it is unclear if Satzewich and Shaffir (2009) are referring to racial profiling specifically or whether this statement is intended to describe profiling in general. Throughout the rest of their article, they make clear that police perceive that it is criminal profiling, "attentiveness to particular signals and 'unusual fits'" Satzewich and Shaffir 2009: 209), that defines their work and that it is police critics who mistakenly conclude that blacks are singled out for differential treatment.

These baseless claims about the Satzewich and Shaffir article as well as the long rhetorical passages in the rejoinder that have no bearing on the original article lead a reader to suspect that this response has more to do with seeking an opportunity to express again to the readership of the Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice the opinions of Henry and Tator than with responding to Satzewich and Shaffir (2009).

It seems that the only offence...