Racial Profiling

Reaction Paper

In the post 9/11 era, many issues regarding race and religion have come about. Due to the violent nature of the airplane attacks on that fateful September morning, Muslims and Arab people have become suspicious looking to the general public. Airport security has been placed on a high alert in order to keep travel as safe as possible. Due to the increase in security, many hardships have been faced by the Muslim and Arab community because of a practice known as racial profiling. Racial profiling singles out a certain person, or groups of people, based solely on their race (Byrne 1). This has been used in airport security because guards feel that there is a much higher probability if a hijacker takes over an American plane, the hijacker won't be an American. Profiling a person based on their race is clearly shown in a case that took place at O'hare International Airport in Chicago. Samar Kaukab was pulled aside and strip searched by an Illinois National Guard security officer. Using profiling as a means to search suspicious looking passengers has been a hot topic since 9/11 and can be argued for and against in many cases. If one were to make a judgment on a case like this, one must understand the legal statutes that lay behind the situation.

Like most issues brought about to the public, the two sides of racial profiling differ depending on if you are more liberal or conservative minded. Most liberals would think that airport security guards shouldn't have the right to question a person based solely on their race. Illegal searches are protected by our rights to the IV Amendment. The amendment states that searches should only take place upon a reasonable cause (Byrne 1). To the security guard, a young Muslim lady with head dressing raised enough suspicion to be a justifiable cause. If a person is believed to be suspicious for expressing their religion, many people across the nation will be disturbed. Our freedom of religion is protected in our first amendment and is one of the most important rights to many Americans. Part of the reason many people come to America is so they can express their religious beliefs without facing oppression. As a 22 year old U.S. citizen, Kaukab could also argue that her IVX Amendment rights were being violated that day as well. That amendment secures the right that no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws (Byrne 1). All of the questions regarding constitutional rights would surely be used by those representing Kaukab.

While the liberal view holds that racial profiling should not be practiced, conservatives thought may differ slightly. Protecting America is a top priority for our current president and will continue to be a point of emphasis for our future representatives. In order for us to be protected, people in positions of securing our safety must use some sort of judgment when looking out for potential threats. Airports use of racial profiling is not the only place in America where this is used. College universities use racial profiling every semester while separating potential candidates (Afridi 3). They allow in a certain number of each ethnicity based on a quota they have devised. The same can be said of most businesses. Many big corporations have a quota on how many people of different races they will hire and employ (Afridi 4). If I were representing O'hare International Airport, I would bring up the many instances where racial profiling is allowed and would argue that there is a double standard set by society.

If I were to judge on the issue, I would have to rule in favor of Samar Kaukab. Based on both sides, I feel that her case has more logical reasons for wanting to sue. While my feelings on racial profiling a lot more accepting than