Racial Profiling In Airports: Effective Or Discriminatory?

Racial profiling in airports has been a contentious issue in the United States, with reports of increased profiling after the September 11, 2001, attacks, often targeting people of Middle Eastern, Muslim, or Maghrebi descent. While some argue that profiling is necessary for security, others claim it is ineffective, unconstitutional, and discriminatory. The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has been at the forefront of these debates, with its behavior detection programs facing criticism for being unscientific, unreliable, and enabling racial and religious profiling. Lawsuits and studies have highlighted the negative impact of profiling on civil liberties and the need for better training and oversight to prevent unlawful discrimination. Despite policies prohibiting unlawful profiling, the practice persists, leading to a backlash from civil rights groups and calls for improved mechanisms to ensure compliance with anti-discrimination laws.

Racial profiling at airports post-9/11

Airport racial profiling in the United States is a government activity directed at a suspect or group of suspects because of their race or ethnicity. Since the September 11 attacks in 2001, there have been reports of an increase in racial profiling at airports, with Muslims and people of Middle Eastern, South Asian, and Arab descent becoming targets of government racial profiling practices. This has also impacted Black, Brown, Indigenous, and poor communities, with SWAT teams being disproportionately used against Black and Latinx people.

In the weeks following the attacks, law enforcement officials investigated those responsible, and nearly 3,000 people lost their lives. The Obama administration's decision to heighten airport security for passengers traveling to the US from 14 nations triggered a backlash of complaints from Muslim and privacy groups, who argued that Obama's response to terror threats was racial profiling. In 2002, a "Special Registration" requirement was announced, which mandated that all males from a list of Arab and Muslim countries report to the government to register and be fingerprinted. This program was suspended in May 2011, and it did not result in any terrorism-related convictions.

The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has also been criticized for its behavior detection program, which has been deemed unscientific and unreliable. Documents revealed specific instances of racial or religious profiling by behavior detection officers in several cities, and it was found that some officers refer passengers for additional screening far more often than others. The TSA has since recommended anti-discrimination training for its employees and has taken steps to phase out the behavior detection program.

Despite these efforts, racial profiling at airports continues to be a concern. A 2009 study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences asserted that racial profiling is no more effective than random profiling, as terrorists are vastly outnumbered by innocents. Additionally, any form of profiling is considered less secure than random profiling, as a terrorist cell can simply send multiple members through security until one is not profiled and can carry out an attack. As such, racial profiling at airports post-9/11 has had limited effectiveness in enhancing security while raising concerns about civil liberties and privacy rights.

Behavioural screening as a form of racial profiling

Behavioural screening is a highly subjective practice that has been criticised for being a form of racial profiling. In the context of airport security, behavioural screening involves the use of "behaviour detection officers" who are trained to identify "behavioural indicators" that may suggest a passenger is high-risk. These indicators include giving "non-answers", lacking details about the purpose of their trip, or downplaying significant facts when answering questions.

The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) in the United States has been criticised for its behavioural screening program, which has been called ""unscientific and unreliable". Documents obtained by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) revealed instances of racial or religious profiling by behaviour detection officers in several airports. The TSA's behavioural indicators have been criticised for being arbitrary and subjective, with some officers referring passengers for additional screening far more often than others.

The Behaviour Assessment Screening System (BASS) was implemented at Logan Airport in Boston, MA, in 2002, following the September 11 attacks. This system allows police to question passengers whose behaviour appears "suspicious". King Downing, the national coordinator of the ACLU's Campaign Against Airport Racial Profiling, has criticised BASS, alleging that it encourages racial profiling. He sued the Massachusetts Port Authority and the Massachusetts State Police, claiming they violated his constitutional rights by targeting him because of his race.

Racial profiling is defined as "the use of race or ethnicity as grounds for suspecting someone of having committed an offence". It involves law enforcement officers viewing people as suspicious because of who they are, what they look like, or where they pray, rather than what they have done. Behavioural profiling, on the other hand, involves analysing specific behaviours and suspect descriptions to identify potential suspects. However, in practice, these two forms of profiling can become intertwined, as behavioural indicators can be used as a pretext for harassing minorities and other targeted groups.

Public opinion on racial profiling at airports

The tragic events of September 11, 2001, spurred a furor over the racial profiling of Arab Americans, people of Middle Eastern descent, and Muslims. In the aftermath of the attacks, most of the complaints regarding racial profiling at airports came from these groups.

Some sources argue that racial profiling at airports is ineffective and unnecessary. A 2009 study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences asserted that, due to terrorists being vastly outnumbered by innocents, racial profiling is no more effective than random profiling. It has also been claimed that any form of profiling is less secure than random profiling because a terrorist cell can simply send multiple members through airport security until one is not profiled.

The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has policies that prohibit unlawful profiling and require managers to ensure behavior detection is conducted without regard to race or ethnicity. However, the TSA has been criticized for retaining a behavior detection program that is unscientific and unreliable, with documents reflecting a disproportionate focus on or an overt bias against Arabs, Muslims, and people of Middle Eastern or South Asian descent.

Racial profiling at airports has also been a topic of discussion regarding full-body scanners. These scanners have been criticized for having trouble reading thick hair and certain head coverings, contributing to the racist profiling of Black passengers and those who wear religious head coverings.

The TSA's role in racial profiling

The TSA, or Transportation Security Administration, is responsible for safeguarding the nation's airports, railways, seaports, and other critical transportation infrastructure. In 2003, the TSA implemented the Screening of Passengers by Observation Technique (SPOT) program, which expanded across the United States in 2007. This program has led to concerns about, and allegations of, racial profiling.

The SPOT program involves Behavior Detection Officers (BDOs) observing passengers as they go through security checkpoints, looking for behaviors that might indicate a higher risk. Passengers identified as potentially high-risk are then subjected to additional screening or, when warranted, referred to law enforcement. However, the TSA's own documents reveal that its indicators are subjective and arbitrary and can be used as a pretext for harassing minorities and disfavored groups. For example, in 2015, it was revealed that SPOT included "excessive throat clearing" and contradictory instructions like "gazing down" and "widely open staring eyes" as signs that someone might be a terrorist.

There have been numerous instances of racial or religious profiling by BDOs in airports across the country, including in Newark, Chicago, Miami, and Honolulu. In one instance, a supervisor at Newark Liberty International Airport instructed profiling based on race and made improper law enforcement referrals to Customs and Border Protection. At Logan Airport in Boston, King Downing, the national coordinator of the American Civil Liberties Union's Campaign Against Airport Racial Profiling, was allegedly targeted because of his race. He has since sued the Massachusetts Port Authority and the Massachusetts State Police, citing a violation of his constitutional rights.

While the TSA maintains that its policies and procedures prohibit unlawful profiling and that screeners are prohibited from selecting passengers for additional screening based on race, critics argue that the agency should develop a specific oversight mechanism to monitor behavior detection activities for compliance with these policies. The TSA has faced backlash from Muslim and privacy groups, particularly under the Trump administration, for its role in racial and religious profiling.

Lawsuits against racial profiling at airports

Since the September 11 attacks, there have been reports of increased racial profiling at airports, with individuals who appear to be Muslim or of Middle Eastern and Maghrebi descent being targeted. This has led to several lawsuits being filed against law enforcement agencies and airports.

One notable case involves Shoshana Hebshi, a mother of two who was pulled off an airplane at gunpoint, arrested, strip-searched, and detained. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed a lawsuit on her behalf against Frontier Airlines and several government defendants. The ACLU has also been involved in other cases, such as the Oregon case of Isidro Andrade-Taffolla, a U.S. citizen who alleged racial profiling by ICE officers.

In 2022, comedian Eric André filed a federal lawsuit against the Clayton County Police Department and the district attorney's office, alleging that he was racially profiled and illegally stopped at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport. André claimed that officers singled him out due to his race and interrogated him about drugs in a public setting. This case highlighted the financial incentives for law enforcement to engage in such practices, as Clayton County seized over $1 million in cash during airport stops.

The ACLU has also criticized the Transportation Security Administration's (TSA) Screening Passengers by Observation Techniques (SPOT) program, arguing that it lacks scientific validation and raises the risk of racial and religious profiling. Despite assurances from the TSA that profiling is not practiced, internal investigations and government audits have raised concerns about the program's effectiveness and potential for abuse.

These lawsuits and complaints aim to hold law enforcement and government agencies accountable for their actions, challenge unconstitutional practices, and seek compensation for any harm caused. They also draw attention to the broader issue of racial profiling and its impact on communities of color.

Frequently asked questions