Racism versus professionalism: claims and counter-claims about racial profiling.

• Author: Satzewich, Vic
• Position: Canada

Introduction

Racial profiling occurs when law enforcement or security officials, consciously or unconsciously, subject individuals at any location to heightened scrutiny based solely or in part on race, ethnicity, Aboriginality, place of origin, ancestry, or religion, or on stereotypes associated with any of these factors, rather than on objectively reasonable grounds for suspecting that the individual is implicated in criminal activity (Tanovich 2006: 13). Operating as a system of surveillance and control, it "creates racial inequities by denying people of color privacy, identity, place, security, and control over their daily life" (Cross 2001: 5).

A number of recent commentaries on racial profiling in policing in Canada have suggested that there ought not be any further debate about whether racial profiling exists (see, e.g., Tator and Henry 2006). They argue that there is credible statistical evidence from police jurisdictions in the United States, Britain, and now Canada that points to the existence of racial profiling as a routine and regular part of policing (see, e.g., Ontario Human Rights Commission 2005; Wortley 2005). Even more pointedly, commentators argue that, even if there are lingering controversies and disagreements over the methods used to collect and interpret the statistical evidence that points to the existence of racial profiling (Wortley and Tanner 2003; Harvey 2003), there is a substantial weight of anecdotal evidence, coming from individuals with minority backgrounds, that a wide variety of institutions and organizations in Canada engage in racial and/or religious profiling (Ontario Human Rights Commission 2005). The argument is that, because many members of minority communities believe that racial profiling exists, this belief in itself is reason enough for the police and other institutional authorities to take the issue of racial profiling seriously and to take steps to curb its use as a policing strategy.

A number of commentators have also noted that, generally speaking, police chiefs, police union representatives, and police boards deny that racial profiling is practised in this country (Wortley and Tanner 2003; Henry and Tator 2006). These denials are explained either as a form of democratic racism (Henry and Tator 2006) or, from the vantage point of Howard S. Becker's (1967) hierarchy of credibility, as outright lies told by those in power in order to protect their prestige and authority. In this paper, we want to suggest an alternative perspective on the issue of racial profiling.

Rather than interpreting police denials of racial profiling as a form of democratic racism, or as lies, this paper suggests that the concept of a police subculture offers the most credible backdrop for understanding what is commonly termed racial profiling. When contextualized in this manner, racial profiling is perceived by the police as one in a series of activities that define their work. We argue that, when seen in the context of police subcultures, such profiling occurs even in the absence of officers who may be inclined to prejudice or discrimination against members of visible minorities. As well, that subculture provides police with a powerful and convincing deflection rhetoric to neutralize claims that the policing institution has failed to root out the racist practices of its officers. Indeed, as our data based on interviews with police officers suggest, police officials feel confident that the organization's efforts to embrace diversity are to be applauded and that its critics should be condemned (Sykes and Matza 1957).

This paper is organized as follows. We begin by identifying some recent manifestations of racial profiling and attend to immediate reactions by the police. We then examine the claims advanced by the police we observed and the particular lens through which they evaluate the occurrence of profiling. In doing so, we examine the deflection rhetoric employed by the police to rationalize claims about their practices, rhetoric that serves to neutralize feelings of blame or guilt regarding the putative targeting of visible minorities. Unsurprisingly, perhaps, what critics label as racially motivated practices, police view as sound, work-related criminal profiling. We attend to their claims in some detail and identify several claims that are used to justify their contention that police activities reflect an underlying commitment to professional policing, without racial overtones. We observe that what police refer to as criminal profiling, which is viewed as necessary for efficient and professional policing, their critics identify as racial profiling. The social construction of the meaning of profiling reflects different perceptions of reality.

Racial profiling in Canada: The background

The allegation that the justice system in Canada treats individuals of minority background unfairly is not new (see, e.g., Backhouse 1999; Mosher 1998). A number of task force reports, commissions of inquiry, and scholarly research papers have suggested that minority groups are both under-policed when they are victims of crime and over-policed when they are seen as perpetrators of crime (see, e.g., Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples 1995; Commission on Systemic Racism in the Ontario Criminal Justice System 1995). More recently, public attention and academic debate have focused on racial profiling as a particularly pernicious example of the over-policing of minorities, particularly among black and Aboriginal communities (Tator and Henry 2006; Tanovich 2006).

The evidence for racial profiling is based on two types of data (Wortley and McCalla 2007): statistical evidence, and perceptions and experiences of differential treatment owing to racialized features. In Canada, the statistical evidence in relation to racial profiling comes from two widely publicized and controversial studies. The first, conducted by the Toronto Star in 2002, showed that black Torontonians are over-represented in certain charge categories, that black people are treated more harshly than whites after they are arrested, and that black offenders are much more likely to be held in custody for bail hearings than their white counterparts (Rankin, Quinn, Shephard, Simmie, and Duncanson 2002). The Star contends that these patterns hold even after other relevant legal factors have been taken into account statistically (Rankin et al. 2002; Wortley and Tanner 2003: 1). In the subsequent public discussion of the Star's findings, the over-representation of black people in certain charge categories was widely interpreted as evidence that the police practised racial profiling.

The second study, which was conducted by University of Toronto criminologist Scot Wortley at the request of the chief of the Kingston, Ontario police force, found that black people were 4 times more likely to be pulled over by police and that Aboriginal residents were 1.4 times more likely to be pulled over by police than were white residents of Kingston. The study also found that 40% of black males between the ages of 15 and 24 were stopped by police during the study year compared to 11% of their white counterparts, and that about 10% of stops involving a black person resulted in an arrest or charge compared to 6% of stops involving whites (Wortley 2005).

Another research strategy is to ask minority groups about their experiences with and perceptions of the justice system and about whether they felt they were being treated fairly by the police, judges, crown attorneys, and other authorities (Wortley 1996; Wortley and Kellough 2004; Wortley and Tanner 2003; see also Solomon and Palmer 2004). In one of its surveys, the 1995 Commission on Systemic Racism in the Ontario Criminal Justice System found, for example, that 43% of black male residents of Toronto, but only 25% of white male residents and 19% of Chinese male residents, reported being stopped by police in the previous two years. It also found that "there were widespread perceptions among Black, Chinese and White Torontonians that judges discriminate on the basis of race" (1998: 178). A 2000 survey of Toronto high school students revealed that black students who were not involved in criminal, deviant, or other activities that would attract police attention were nevertheless 4 times more likely to report being stopped and 6 times more likely to report being searched than were similarly situated white students (Wortley and Tanner 2005). The Ontario Human Rights Commission (2005) invited testimonials and submissions from individuals and organizations that had been affected by racial profiling. Their report focused on the social, economic, and psychological costs and consequences of racial profiling for individuals, families, and communities in Ontario and made a series of recommendations to address racial profiling in a variety of organizations (Ontario Human Rights Commission 2005: 1-4). In 2003, 36 black police officers were asked to recount their lived experiences with having been the subjects of racial profiling, and a majority indicated that they had been stopped and questioned by other police officers "for no other reason than the colour of their skin" (Tanovich 2006: 1-2).

David Tanovich's (2006) The Colour of Justice provides a comprehensive analysis and summary of what is known about racial profiling in Canada. Tanovich outlines the extent and scope of profiling based on race but also skilfully presents its nuanced character, which, in his view, obscures its total impact. Maintaining that the colour of justice in Canada is white, Tanovich (2006: 1) contends, "If you are not White, you face a much greater risk of attracting the attention of law enforcement officials in public spaces such as the highway, street, border, or airport." Tanovich offers two salient points. The first is that, as his numerous examples show, this increased surveillance is due, not to the behaviour of particular...