ONE WEEK ago today, The Washington Post reported that "there is a high probability that terrorists associated with Osama bin Laden will try to launch another major attack on American targets here or abroad in the near future." In light of Sunday's air strikes on Afghanistan, the likelihood of these predicted attacks taking place is undeniably heightened.
We can and have taken military action, but bin Laden and his followers consistently have expressed an indifference to moves of this kind. We are fighting an enemy that is unconcerned with its own destruction and seeks only to bring us down. Under these conditions of hatred against us, internal security measures against people of Middle Eastern descent need to be taken that would otherwise be regarded as objectionable by American moral standards.
Since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, airport security has been subject to heavy reproach for what dissenters are calling morally inexcusable racial profiling against individuals appearing to be of Arab descent. While these measures have been taken to an inequitable extreme in some cases, in moderation they are not only acceptable, but essential.
Many will argue that this type of conduct is a breach of civil rights and contradicts the much-revered American notion of presumed innocence. If the type of racial profiling that security officials are enacting is taken out of its current context, the truth of this criticism certainly would ring true and there would be no question as to the injustice of these procedures. However, we now face a glaring national security threat the likes of which our country has never seen. We know for a fact that there are terrorists operating in the United States. To ignore the one trait - race - that can aid us in their identification would be foolish.
Given our current unusual circumstances, it's essential that security measures - especially in airports - be heightened in some way. Many have argued that if these procedures are to be increased for any one segment of the population that they should be increased for all. This is a nice idea in theory, but the fact is that it could never work considering the vast amount of non-Arabic passengers that flow through airport security daily. It is doubtful that even the most enthusiastic anti-profiling supporters would want to wait while every passenger is subject to heightened security checks. Therefore, we recognize the need for heightened security, yet see that a universal security increase would require resources that we do not have. The line has to be drawn somewhere, and just where it should lie is abundantly obvious.
The kind of additional security being called for here is not extreme. Extra measures should consist of a closer examination of baggage as well as a few brief questions. Airline officials should be instructed to keep within the bounds only of what is deemed necessary and should suffer severe consequences for unnecessarily stepping outside these bounds. Just as we do not object to walking through metal detectors when we go into museums, Americans and visitors of Middle-Eastern descent need to recognize that these security checks are not meant to imply that they are criminals. Our country is merely in a time of crisis, and thus must take all possible precautionary measures.
We as Americans need to realize the innocuous nature of this type of racial profiling. If conducted correctly, it will by no means largely inconvenience anyone, and by looking at the bigger picture we can realize that there is far more at stake here than the unjustified annoyance of a few individuals. We have found ourselves in unfortunate circumstances, and we must do our best to deal with them.
Due to the often unfair type of racial profiling taken out against African-Americans, the term has come to be seen as synonymous with racism. We need to realize that this is not the case in regard to temporarily conducting more extensive security checks on those of Middle Eastern descent in our airports. These actions are not mindless: Our country is currently under a pressing and immediate threat from a terrorist organization that happens to be of Middle-Eastern descent. Should those responsible for the recent bombings have been of any other distinguishable group, they would be subject to the same scrutiny. This is not about race - this is about safety.
President Bush has gone to great lengths to combat anti-Arab sentiment in the United States in the wake of the recent attacks. The point has been reiterated time and again that we are not fighting the Afghani people, but rather a terrorist organization to which the vast majority of them have no affiliation. These steps have been well taken, but there is a point where ideals and humanitarian efforts need to bow to the reality of our situation. To needlessly endanger Americans across the country out of a fear of exciting controversy or of accidentally stepping over the line of civil liberties would be nothing short of idiotic. We as a country need to recognize the extraordinary nature of our current situation and understand that our every day notions of morality need to be modified to fit these new and difficult circumstances.
(Laura Parcells' column appears Fridays in The Cavalier Daily. She can be reached at lparcells@cavalierdaily.com.)
Read More
PATEL: Personal development courses support students beyond the gradebook
By Heer Patel | 21 hours agoThe University must rethink its approach to education beyond traditional major-specific requirements and mandate personal development courses.
EDITORIAL: Commercialization threatens U.Va.’s educational mission
By Editorial Board | YesterdayAfter all, measuring the University’s worth in terms of accrued capital, operational efficiency and numerical rankings molds this space into just another cookie-cutter institution.
YOUNIS: Why every U.Va. student should say yes to English
By Ayat Younis | 6 days agoEvery student at the University, regardless of their primary field of study, can professionally and academically benefit from engaging with the English department.
