Airport Racial Profiling: Commonplace Discrimination?

Airport racial profiling has been a significant issue in the United States, with reports of increased occurrences since the September 11 attacks. Law enforcement officials have routinely targeted individuals based on their race, religious appearance, or ethnic background. This practice has led to widespread complaints and legal challenges, with groups advocating for civil liberties and privacy rights, such as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), actively campaigning against it. The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has faced scrutiny for its behavior detection programs, which are criticized for being unscientific and enabling racial and religious profiling. While the TSA denies discriminatory intent, the impact of its screening procedures and technologies has raised concerns about racial discrimination and the reinforcement of human biases.

The Fourth Amendment and racial profiling

The Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution protects the rights of individuals against unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. It states that "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated". However, racial profiling in airports, which has been a common practice since the September 11 attacks, raises questions about potential violations of the Fourth Amendment.

Racial profiling in airports refers to the targeting of individuals by law enforcement based on their race, ethnicity, or religious appearance. This practice has been widely criticised as unconstitutional and a violation of civil rights. Many cases have been reported where individuals, particularly those who appear to be Muslim or of Middle Eastern and Maghrebi descent, have been subjected to additional screening or questioning by airport security due to their racial or religious background.

The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) in the United States has been at the centre of racial profiling controversies. Despite having policies that prohibit unlawful profiling, the TSA has been accused of implementing a behaviour detection program that facilitates racial and religious profiling. Between October 2015 and February 2018, the TSA received about 3,700 complaints alleging civil rights and civil liberties violations related to passenger screening. In response to these complaints, the TSA's Multicultural Branch reviewed 2,059 complaints and found indications of potential discrimination and unprofessional conduct in about half of them.

The behaviour detection program employed by the TSA relies on subjective indicators of stress, fear, or deception to identify potentially high-risk passengers. However, scientific studies have shown that these behavioural indicators are not reliable cues to deception and can be used as a pretext for harassing minorities. For instance, common behaviours associated with lying, such as gaze aversion or nervous gestures, are included in the TSA's secret list of indicators despite a lack of empirical support. As a result, officers may refer passengers for additional screening based on arbitrary and subjective criteria, leading to instances of racial profiling.

To address these concerns, recommendations have been made for the TSA to phase out the behaviour detection program and replace it with more rigorous and scientific methods that do not infringe on civil liberties. Additionally, the implementation of anti-discrimination training programs for all TSA employees has been suggested to raise awareness and prevent instances of racial profiling. By improving oversight mechanisms and adhering to policies that prohibit unlawful profiling, the TSA can work towards eliminating racial profiling in airports and upholding the rights guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment.

TSA's behaviour detection program

The TSA's behaviour detection program, also known as the Screening of Passengers by Observation Techniques (SPOT) program, is designed to identify potentially high-risk passengers exhibiting behaviours that indicate stress, fear, or deception. The program, which has been in place since at least 2015, involves Behaviour Detection Officers (BDOs) observing passengers and comparing their behaviours to an established behavioural baseline. Passengers exhibiting certain behaviours are then referred for additional screening or, in some cases, to law enforcement.

The TSA maintains that its behaviour detection program is not a form of racial profiling and that its policies and procedures prohibit unlawful profiling. According to the TSA, screeners are prohibited from selecting passengers for additional screening based on race. However, the program has been widely criticised by groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Knight First Amendment Institute, who argue that it is unscientific, unreliable, and has been used as a cover for racial and religious profiling.

Documents obtained by the ACLU under the Freedom of Information Act appear to support these criticisms, revealing that the TSA's behaviour detection checklist includes dozens of vague and subjective indicators, such as "excessive fidgeting," "strong body odour," "whistling," and "exaggerated emotions." These indicators have been described as "catch-all behaviours to justify BDO interaction with a passenger" and have been criticised for their potential to be used as a pretext for harassing minorities and disfavoured groups.

Furthermore, numerous academic and scientific studies have been published that directly contradict the premise of the program, demonstrating that attempts to identify deceit or bad intentions based on behaviour are highly subjective and unreliable. Despite these criticisms and the lack of scientific support for the program, the TSA has continued to defend its use, stating that it is "threat-agnostic" and adaptable to new weapons or tactics.

The TSA has also taken steps to improve the program by incorporating feedback from organisations like the GAO. These improvements include condensing and strengthening the behaviour indicator list and optimising weights and protocols, as well as exploring additional performance metrics to examine overall program effectiveness.

Discrimination against passengers of colour

One notable example is the case of King Downing, the national coordinator of the American Civil Liberties Union's Campaign Against Airport Racial Profiling. Downing, a black man with a short beard, alleged that he was a victim of racial profiling by police at Logan International Airport in Boston. He was stopped and questioned by state police after arriving on a flight to attend a meeting on racial profiling. Convinced that he was targeted due to his race, Downing sued the Massachusetts Port Authority and the Massachusetts State Police, arguing that his constitutional rights had been violated.

Beyond individual experiences, studies and data also indicate the prevalence of racial profiling in airports. Between October 2015 and February 2018, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) received approximately 3,700 complaints alleging civil rights and civil liberties violations related to passenger screening. While many of these complaints lacked complete information, the Multicultural Branch of the TSA found potential discrimination and unprofessional conduct involving race in about half of the reviewed cases.

Additionally, academic research has challenged the scientific basis of behaviour detection programs used by the TSA. These programs rely on indicators of stress, fear, or deception, which have been criticised as subjective and arbitrary. Social science literature, including studies reviewed by the TSA, suggests that behaviours commonly associated with lying, such as gaze aversion or nervous gestures, are not reliable indicators of deception. Despite this, the TSA has continued to utilise these behaviour detection techniques, raising concerns about their effectiveness in preventing discrimination.

To address these issues, the TSA has implemented policies prohibiting unlawful profiling and has recommended training initiatives to promote a proactive approach to preventing discrimination. However, there are calls for more comprehensive oversight mechanisms to ensure compliance with anti-discrimination policies. The American Civil Liberties Union and other organisations have advocated for the phasing out of behaviour detection programs and the introduction of rigorous anti-discrimination training for all TSA employees. These efforts aim to protect the civil rights and liberties of passengers while ensuring airport security remains effective and unbiased.

Profiling after 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 terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, there have been reports on the increase in racial profiling at airports, with a focus on people who appear to be Muslim or of Middle Eastern and Maghrebi descent.

In the weeks following 9/11, federal, state, and local law enforcement officials investigated those responsible for the attacks, which took the lives of nearly 3,000 people. This led to a wave of racial profiling, with race, religion, or political views being used as indicators for terrorism. For instance, in the first Trump administration, then-Attorney General Barr deployed JTTFs to surveil racial justice activists protesting the police killings of George Floyd and other Black people. In another instance, King Downing, the national coordinator of the American Civil Liberties Union's Campaign Against Airport Racial Profiling, sued the Massachusetts Port Authority and the Massachusetts State Police, alleging that they violated his constitutional rights. He claimed that he was targeted because of his race and that the behavioural screening system used at Logan Airport encourages racial profiling.

The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has also been accused of racial profiling. From October 2015 through February 2018, the TSA received about 3,700 complaints alleging civil rights and civil liberties violations related to passenger screening. While the TSA has policies prohibiting unlawful profiling, there have been calls for greater oversight to ensure compliance with these policies. The TSA's behaviour detection program has been criticised as unscientific and unreliable, and there are concerns that it can be used as a cover for racial and religious profiling.

The increase in airport security and racial profiling after 9/11 has had a significant impact on Muslims, Arabs, Sikhs, and South Asians in America. There was a rise in hate crimes and discrimination, with reports of verbal abuse, racial slurs, threats, assaults, vandalism, and robbery targeting these communities. Additionally, the Obama administration's decision to heighten airport security for passengers travelling to the US from 14 nations triggered complaints from Muslim and privacy groups, who felt that the response to terror threats amounted to racial profiling.

The effectiveness of profiling

Racial profiling in airports has been a common practice since the September 11 attacks, with people who appear to be Muslim or of Middle Eastern and Maghrebi descent being targeted. While the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has policies prohibiting unlawful profiling, there have been numerous complaints and instances of racial profiling by TSA officers. From October 2015 to February 2018, the TSA received about 3,700 complaints alleging civil rights and civil liberties violations related to passenger screening.

Furthermore, racial profiling can have negative consequences for community relations and trust in law enforcement. King Downing, the national coordinator of the American Civil Liberties Union's Campaign Against Airport Racial Profiling, sued the Massachusetts State Police, alleging that his constitutional rights were violated due to racial profiling. He argued that the behavioral screening system used at Logan Airport encourages racial profiling, as it targets individuals based on their race and religious or ethnic appearance.

To address these issues, the TSA should develop a specific oversight mechanism to monitor behavior detection activities and ensure compliance with policies prohibiting unlawful profiling. Additionally, the TSA should phase out the SPOT program and implement rigorous anti-discrimination training for all employees. By doing so, the TSA can improve the effectiveness of its security measures while also protecting the civil rights and liberties of passengers.

Frequently asked questions