William Raspberry still hasn’t connected the dots linking his opposition to racial profiling in airports to his support for racial profiling in admissions offices.
Even Raspberry’s support for preferential admissions is, to his credit, not without its quirks and contradictions. Thus he can applaud, as I quoted here, Martin Luther King’s dream as carried forward today in Bill Cosby’s effort to judge people “not by what we are but by how we behave — ‘by the content of our character.'” He wants whites to “learn to look beyond our skin and see our behavior.” And, contrary to those chic preferentialists seek to discredit the idea of merit itself, he makes the telling observation (quoted here) that “[h]ardly any black student would demand the right to a seat denied a higher-scoring black applicant.”
How, then, can he continue to support preferential admissions, even calling for what amounts to race norming? As I quoted him here: “the best of the black applicants ought to be admitted to the top places of learning — provided they demonstrate the ability to perform the work.” Blacks, in short, do not deserve the seats of higher scoring blacks, but they do deserve (or for its own reasons society ought to give them) the seats of higher scoring whites, Asians, etc.
How, indeed.
But let’s leave those inconsistencies in Raspberry’s support for racial profiling in admissions and turn to today’s column, which presents his opposition to racial profiling in airports. He objects to airport profiling, among other reasons, because of what he finds its offensive underlying assumption:
It’s as though white people come in all sizes, ages and predispositions, while young Arab men are fungible.
But surely the notion that “diversity” is automatically enhanced whenever any black is admitted rests on the same offensive assumption, i.e., that all blacks are fungible.
Raspberry also notes that “[r]andom checks have the virtue of rendering us all equal.” True, just as judging all job and college applicants on the same standard would render them all equal as well.
It’s hard to argue convincingly for racial equality when you justify treating people unequally based on their race.
Every human activity has its costs and drawbacks. The risk here is that of bombs going off, in the subway, in museums, at Macy’s while I’m shopping! The other risk is unfair treatment of innocents. The US can’t ignore the fact that certain people who can be described want to set off bombs and kill dozens. This is not like ordinary crime, where we all take the risk of being mugged, raped, etc. I don’t want the risk of being bombed. This is why terrorism and democracy cannot survive together. this is also why democracy requires such a high level of discipline and self control. I don’t care how unhappy you are or how much you’ve suffered. You can’t go around bombing things. When you do, the state has to take action, against you and others who it believes might be likely to do such things. As a black person, I would like to point out that blacks have not been terrorists in the US. We’ve suffered. What gives muslims or arabs this right?
Anita,
To be a nitpicker, blacks have been terrorist in the US. A black man who was a drug dealer in Baltimore burned down the house of someone who had complain to the police and murdered an entire family. If that is not a terrorist, then who is?
I don’t recall many black terrorists being so identified in the liberal press. Anybody remember the words: “Burn, Baby, Burn!?”
Perhaps these words were erroniously excerpted from 911 calls?
That drug dealer was not a political terrorist. He didn’t belong to a group that wanted to kill all the whites or jews, etc. Let’s not start using the word terrorist for other savage acts. As for blacks, we got close to terrorism with some of the black panthers. One white policeman was assasinated and one school official, who was black, but who was not radical enough for the panthers. there may have been others, but the violence was mostly within the panthers themselves against each other. And look what happened to them. Most ended up in jail or dead. Terrorism should be costly to the terrorists.
Anita writes:
>>>”Terrorism should be costly to the terrorists.”
By whose definition? Terrorism is a tactic–a strategy.
“(noun) 1 : a state of intense fear; 2 a : one that inspires fear : SCOURGE ; b : a frightening aspect ; c : a cause of anxiety : WORRY ; d : an appalling person or thing; especially : BRAT ; 3 : REIGN OF TERROR; 4 : violence (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands ”
Anita, you’re absolutely correct in your statements regarding terrorism and African Americans. The bucket of documented history is OVERFLOWING with accounts of the American government fulfilling definition #4. We also both know which group has been, and continues to be in CONTROL of America, and the newsflash to our fellow blog posters is “It ain’t black folks.”
But facts like these don’t get in the way of a good foray into scapegoating.
But here’s where we part ways. We disagreed on an earlier thread regarding whether a 500 lb. bomb landing near somebody in Baghdad during “Shock and Awe” actually terrorized people. My argument is that it did. “Shock and Awe” was the dictionary definition of terror.
As far as racial profiling is concerned, I’m against it. First, “Arab” is not a race. Second, radical Muslims aren’t exclusively Arab, and Third, it’s ineffective police work.
–Cobra