- The Washington Times - Wednesday, December 6, 2006

Racial profiling is seen as abhorrent to the enlightened thinkers of 21st-century America, which often leads to absurd scenes at the three major airports in the region.

The blue-haired biddy from the Midwest may be strapped with a bomb, ready to meet her maker in the sky, but the chances of that are infinitesimally small, to the point that a passenger has a greater chance of being run over by a taxi in front of the terminal than being blown up by Granny.

Yet our government plays this game, with the encouragement of the enlightened ones, which no doubt contributed to the brouhaha involving the six imams who were removed from a Minneapolis-to-Phoenix flight last month.

News reports suggest they were testing the tenets of political correctness with their anti-America verbiage.

They did so knowing it would be impolite of anyone to notice they were Muslim.

They, of course, cried racism the moment they were removed from the plane, which perhaps was part of their contingency plan.

All this stuff is hypocritical because we as a society racially profile in all kinds of areas.

The latter just happen to come with the stamp of approval of the enlightened ones, too obtuse to see the hypocrisy of their philosophy.

University admissions directors routinely employ racial profiling to admit this or that prospective student in the quest to reach the perfect blend of diversity on a campus. Now they are too sophisticated to call racial profiling by its real term.

So they employ euphemisms and talk of a nobler purpose, however ignoble the selection process may seem to an otherwise qualified candidate who receives a rejection letter because of a quota already satisfied.

The city’s lawmakers routinely employ racial profiling in the awarding of government contracts.

They do not call the practice racial profiling either. They call it preferences, the awarding of contracts to those who meet a racial, ethnic or sex component that is deemed essential to the city.

This practice sometimes does not make good business sense. It sometimes costs city taxpayers a bundle in the long term. But that is not the problem of city lawmakers.

They are playing with your money, after all.

Now few would conduct their personal affairs in this fashion. If you decided to have your house painted, you probably would go with the company that presented the lowest bid and top references, regardless of race, creed or sex.

If, in fact, you adopted the government’s business practices, you would be obligated to ask each company representative the following: “Is yours a Hispanic, black, Asian, Arab or European-descent company? And does a man or woman own the company?”

To take this premise to its logical end, you sometimes would be required to hire the more expensive company in order to meet your preference score card.

This philosophy also could be applied to the picking of restaurants, if only to remain true to the principle. It would be incredibly discriminatory to Ethiopian or Indian or Italian restaurant owners if you limited your dining experiences to mostly Thai, Cambodian and Chinese establishments.

Each of the latter three restaurants would fall under the Asian box, which would lower your diversity score.

Alas, this sort of thinking is anything but fair and colorblind, and it certainly is inconsistent with the horror the enlightened ones feel with racial profiling.

No, it is not nice to racially profile the “praying” imams before a flight.

But it is certainly all right to racially profile them if they are applying to a university, and it even possibly benefits them if an admissions director is having difficulty meeting the Middle Eastern quota.

When the next act of terrorism is unleashed, whether in this city or elsewhere, there will be loud cries for an exhaustive investigation.

Something tells most of us that it won’t be the work of an explosives-toting, blue-haired grandmother.

LOAD COMMENTS ()

 

Click to Read More

Click to Hide