Jewish Groups In Bind On Subway Profiling

Notion of race-based searches has centrist groups stymied in replay of Guantanamo silence.

As civil libertarians head to court to halt police searches of subway commuters, insisting it will lead to racial profiling, Jewish organizations here are struggling to reconcile their strong support of civil rights and civil liberties with concern about preventing terror attacks.

While illegal, some say racial profiling — among the tactics regularly used in Israel — is a necessary evil if police are to concentrate limited resources on apprehending terror suspects.

And major Jewish groups, seldom shy about weighing in on matters of the moment, have been publicly silent in the debate.

“It’s a very complicated question and can’t be dismissed, or accepted, out of hand,” said Marc Stern, legal affairs expert for the American Jewish Congress.

Stern said Congress leaders have debated the topic extensively, but the group has yet to announce a position.

“Our initial reaction is that [racial profiling] is a terrible idea, but on the other hand it’s not irrational,” said Stern. “[We] have not been able to resolve whether we are opposed in all circumstances, or whether in some circumstances it might be useful.”

The Jewish Community Relations Council, whose primary mission is to improve Jewish relations with the city’s numerous ethnic communities, also has taken no public position.

But on Monday, associate executive director David Pollock, who handles the agency’s security issues, suggested that public discomfort with racial profiling could curtail anti-terrorism efforts.

“The JCRC is generally supportive of legitimate police activities,” said Pollock. “In this case the NYPD has carefully studied the constitutional constraints that might mitigate what might be the best practices in counterterrorism.”

This is the second time in recent weeks that a matter of terrorism-related public policy has put Jewish groups in a bind.

Earlier this month, the American Jewish Committee was the only organization to support legislation requiring interrogation of terror suspects at the Guantanamo Bay naval base to be conducted in accordance with U.S. Army regulations. The silence suggests that security trumps civil liberty ideals when it comes to getting information that could thwart an attack.

Cops here began what they insist are random searches of passengers following the July 7 London bombings that killed 56 Underground and bus riders. Commissioner Raymond Kelly said the searches would not be based on religion or race.

Despite Kelly’s insistence that the searches are random, the New York Civil Liberties Union went to Brooklyn Federal Court last week to halt the subway searches.

“We appreciate that the Police Department has stated that it does not intend to engage in profiling,” said Donna Lieberman, the NYCLU’s executive director. “But we believe that the policy is one that is vulnerable to just that and we will monitor it.”

The debate heated up when Brooklyn Assemblyman Dov Hikind announced that he would introduce a law authorizing police or other personnel to use race as one determining factor of whom to search. Hikind noted that a majority of terrorism suspects have originated in Arab countries.

“You go with percentages,” he said in an interview. “That doesn’t mean you exclude anyone else. But police have to do what they need to do.”

Hikind has been advised by a lawyer from the George Washington University School of Law, John Banzhaf III, that such a law would withstand constitutional scrutiny. In an interview, Banzhaf noted a recent Supreme Court ruling involving the University of Michigan’s consideration of race in admissions policy.

“The court sanctioned using race and ethnicity providing it meets two criteria,” said Banzhaf. “It has to serve a compelling governmental interest, in that case preventing racial stereotypes and discrimination. Preventing another massive terror attack and saving thousands of lives and billions of dollars is at least as compelling a state interest.

Joel Levy of the Anti-Defamation League issued a statement last week expressing confidence in police procedures but not addressing the propriety of profiling.

“I think they are treating the problem with complete seriousness and dealing with it very well,” he said.

Jeff Sinensky, general counsel for the AJCommittee, said he had not seen the details of Hikind’s proposed bill but added, “We would not have a position that would allow us to support racial profiling.”

Dara Silverman, executive director of Jews for Racial and Economic Justice, said Tuesday that profiling would cause more harm than good.

“What would make us stronger is to work to support immigrant communities and communities of color that have been most directly affected since Sept. 11,” said Silverman.

On Wednesday the Workmen’s Circle, a social justice-oriented group founded by Jewish laborers, was to join with the American Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, the NYCLU and others to denounce Hikind’s proposal.

“As Jews, we have not forgotten the discrimination our people have faced throughout history,” said a statement by the Workmen’s Circle. “Many people in the United States continue to face prejudice and discrimination today because of their skin color or ethnic origin, despite constitutional and legislative protections and the historical abolition of racial segregation.”

Stern of AJCongress said he viewed racial profiling related to domestic crime separately from such procedures used in counterterrorism. Using race in an attempt to collar drug dealers or car thieves, for example, presents too high a cost to society in that it causes innocent people wrongly targeted to “lose faith and confidence in society,” he said.

In the case of terrorism, however, Stern said the stakes are higher and the potential for large-scale casualties could outweigh those concerns.

Aside from moral and ethical issues, the debate over racial profiling is punctuated with practical concerns. For example, recently apprehended terror suspects here and in England have been multiethnic.

“One problem with ethnic profiling is that you can rely too heavily on a profile and miss something else,” said Stern. “The terrorists can find someone who doesn’t fit the profile. It can detract attention from behavioral observance that is more likely to lead to [apprehensions].”

Even Israelis who insist that race and ethnicity must play a part in security checks there say more complex issues are involved here.

“There is no doubt that if you’re an Arab you’ll be searched more thoroughly in Israel,” said Itai Sneh, a Jerusalem-born professor at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in Manhattan, whose courses include a history of terrorism.

Sneh noted, however, that while in Israel there are two dominant ethnic groups, Jews and Arabs, American society is far more diverse.

“In the U.S. there are many more people from different ethnicities, and the bottom line is you can’t learn everything [from appearances],” he said.

“Most people want to live and let live, and if the police gain the trust of the communities … a lot of good can come out of it,” he said. “They will tell a police officer when there is a bad guy saying bad things. That’s much more useful than just some searches done at random.”