ACLU vs. police unions on interpreting profiling data

Yesterday Tom Gaylor, a Texas police union lobbyist portraying himself as a "criminologist and sociologist," responded in the comments to Grits' post detailing new federal racial profiling statistics. Later, King Downing, director of ACLU's New-York-based national campaign to end racial profiling, sent me a response to Gaylor via email. Tom's arguments were so typical of police obfuscations about profiling that, with King's permission, I wanted to publish his riposte here. Tom's comments King is responding to are included in bold:

Whether intended or not Tom Gaylor’s response misses the point in many serious ways:

“This and other studies like this have continued to fuel the fire of racial tension between law enforcement and minority groups.”

The studies don’t fuel the tension—they try to measure it. Gaylor is blaming the messenger. The thermometer doesn’t cause the fire.

“…these studies…have never and will never be able to explain the reason for the disparity…”

Gaylor is using a straw man. The studies don’t claim to explain the reason for the disparities. The studies were begun in response to police, in the absence of data, dismissing the community’s complaints as anecdotal evidence.

“…special interest groups rush to label police as racists.”

Gaylor is running out of straw. I challenge Gaylor to present one quote from an organization claiming police are racist as a result of a racial profiling data report. And in my book, law enforcement is a special interest group, and a powerful one at that. Ask any politician who tries to pass even a modest a racial profiling law.

“As a sociologist and a criminologist the danger of never determining why the disparities exists is that we will never be able to address the real issues.”

Nothing Gaylor says is true. The reason for the disparities can be determined—ask the police. In Rhode Island’s study police were asked in advance of the results if there were any reason they might have disparities. Researchers looked into the stated causes, and found that they had no relation to the differences. Best of all, they were able to include this finding in the report itself. In the past such explanations by police went unchallenged because the research had ended.

“In criminal statistics and prison populations minorities groups are drastically overrepresented so why should we be surprised that the numbers of minorities searched or arrested would be any different.

“More crime is committed by those and against those who live in lower socioeconomic areas."

Minority crime statistics are a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you target them, you will see more of them in court and in jail.

And what about white-collar crime? Can we say “Enron?” Compared to street crime, its costs are staggering. The Association of Certified Fraud Examiners estimates that six percent of revenues are lost through occupational fraud and abuse: asset misappropriation, corruption, or fraudulent statements. Applied to the Gross Domestic Product, this adds up to about $600 billion, or about $4,500 per employee. The typical criminal is an older white man in the upper company hierarchy. Median losses for the oldest employees (over 60) were $500,000, which was 27 times higher than losses caused by employees less than 26 years of age.

If it costs society so much where is the “war” on corporate crime? Where are the politicians “get tough, lock ‘em up, throw away the key” speeches? Why aren’t older white males being targeted, arrested, filling the jails? Of course, that would be racial profiling.

Despite Gaylor’s claims to the contrary, stereotypes about race and crime drive law enforcement and are not “well beyond the control of law enforcement officers.” As they see “hit rate” data showing that once stopped, people of color are not more likely, and often less likely, to have drugs or weapons on them than whites, are causing objective sociologists and criminologists, and police, to see that race is not a legitimate factor in stops and searches. These true scientists are using the data to press police for explanations, not provide them with excuses.