Discrimination Against Arabs at the Airlines and the Taboo Topic of Rational Discrimination
The New York Times reports that Continental Airlines has agreed to settle a lawsuit accusing it of discrimination against “travelers believed to have been of Arab, Middle Eastern or Southeast Asian descent” after the September 11, 2001 attacks. As part of the settlement, Continental is required “to provide civil rights training over the next two years to its pilots and cabin crew.” The settlement provides that the training “must cost the company no less than $500,000.”
Now, I have no idea whether Continental employees indeed engaged in inappropriate behavior or not. It is certainly conceivable that they took actions that were inexcusably rude and baselessly discriminatory. But I am very concerned about the chilling effect that lawsuits like this will have on the airlines’ ability to provide proper security. Will airline employees be reluctant to give a little extra attention to an Arab traveler in circumstances where such attention might be warranted?
In this regard, it seems relevant to ask: were Continental employees uniquely insensitive to Arab travelers? A clue is contained in the Times story:
This is the third settlement regarding discrimination against airline passengers in the weeks following the terror attacks, the [Transportation] department said. It settled similar accusations with United Airlines last year and with American Airlines in February.
Gee, where would United Airlines and American Airlines get the idea that Arab passengers might need a little extra scrutiny?
I don’t want to be cavalier about this. I understand that law-abiding Arab citizens could be offended by having to undergo additional security procedures. But if that happened to them, I would hope that they would put their feelings in perspective.
Giving extra scrutiny to Arabs at the airport can fairly be called “rational discrimination,” a concept I first read about in a book called The End of Racism by Dinesh D’Souza. Among other things, D’Souza says that, while stereotyping based on race or ethnicity is hurtful and to be avoided when possible, some discrimination is rational — especially when there is no time to learn about a person as an individual, and the decision you make could make the difference between life and death.
For example, D’Souza uses the example of cabbies in urban areas such as New York City who are reluctant to pick up young black males at night. It turns out that the cabbies doing this are often black themselves. Are they doing this because they’re bigots? Or because they’re trying to stay alive?
D’Souza points out that the cabbie does not have the luxury of sitting down with the person hailing the cab, to get to know him as a person. He argues that, given crime statistics, picking up a young black male in New York City on a Saturday night increases the cabbie’s risk of being robbed or killed. He also argues that young black males upset about not getting a cab should not be angry only at the cabbies, but should reserve some of their anger for other young black males who rob and kill cabbies.
There is ample evidence that black cabbies refuse to pick up certain blacks. As described here:
The ethical quandary facing cabdrivers was clearly expressed by Paul Frietz, a black native of Haiti who has been driving New York City taxis for 15 years. He recalled being robbed, assaulted, and having his hand broken in 1997 by two passengers, both young black men. “Now, Frietz said, “I simply don’t pick up teenagers. You’re suppose to stop for everybody, but do you really think cabdrivers are going to put our lives on the line? That is nonsense, and you can be sure 99 percent of the drivers agree.”
Jacques Proro, another black Haitian with many years of experience as a cabdriver, echoed Frietz’s remarks. “There are two things you have to make sure of as a taxi driver, that you are safe and that you get paid,” said Proro. He said that he had sometimes decided not to pick up customers who looked threatening or appeared to be unable to pay. “You have to look before you stop,” he said, adding that “unfortunately, the problem is often with my people, with black people.”
Another Haitian cabbie said: “We try to make a living, that’s all. We are not racists.” Another cabdriver, facing possible fines for refusing to pick up blacks, summed up the problem succinctly: “I’d rather be fined than have my wife a widow.”
I think the problem of cabbies not picking up blacks is analogous to the problem of airlines treating Arab passengers differently. It can be hurtful to the innocent people who end up being treated differently. But, depending on the circumstances, it can also be rational. The people doing the discriminating don’t have the time to get to know their passengers personally. They have to make a snap decision — potentially a life-and-death decision.
Now, I am not saying that anyone on the face of the planet needs to be unnecessarily rude to anyone. And I understand that people like to be treated like people, not like the worst stereotypes of groups to whom they belong. When it’s possible, people should not be stereotyped. This is not just lip service. I mean this.
But, come on! In certain circumstances, an airline employee may give a little extra scrutiny to an Arab passenger. If I were an Arab, I would understand this. I would expect to be treated politely, but I would understand that the extra scrutiny is rational, given the consequences of not being vigilant to the dangers of terrorism. And I would recognize that the need for the scrutiny ultimately traces back to some very violent Arabs such as those who committed the attacks on Sept. 11.
Anyone reading this who flew shortly after September 11: do you remember what that was like? As you waited for the plane, did you look around to see if you saw any young angry-looking Arab males? Not kindly-looking Arab grandmothers. Not Arabs to bash because you hated Arabs. Young, angry-looking Arab males. I’ll bet you did. And that was a rational response to what had recently happened. You didn’t need to glare at them or seek to have excluded from the plane. But you might have quietly decided that you wanted to know who they were and where they were sitting — just in case.
That is a tragic thing. It really is. Because if you did that, chances are overwhelming that any Arabs you noticed fitting that description were completely law-abiding citizens. And, even if you thought you were being subtle, they probably noticed the lingering glances coming from you and many other passengers.
It’s tragic. But I don’t blame you.
I realize that raising the issue of stereotyping and discrimination is virtually taboo. If I were a highly visible public personality, discussing the concept of rational discrimination could end my career. It’s happened before.
But this is an important topic, and we need to be able to discuss it. Because lawsuits like this are going to deter the airlines from taking the necessary steps to protect airline passengers. People could die in the name of political correctness. This is not good, folks. Not at all.
I was in the Marine reserves at the time of the Oklahoma City bombing by McVeigh. And while I don’t look too much like him, I have the same general physical characteristics and build that he did: white, medium build, sandy brown hair, and a serious look sketched on my face.
And when I travelled by bus or plane, it came as no surprise that I received a little extra scrutiny. I’d be asked an extra question or two, probably only to judge my comfort level. Is it “fair?” No. Did it get annoying at times? Sure. But is it understandable? Of course.
It has nothing to do with racism. It’s the “I remind folks of that other jerk” tax on civil liberties. It happens to most of us at one time or another.
And sometimes, it IS fair. After all, if a few weeks after the OC bombing I decided to board a bus wearing my uniform, carrying a filled-to-capacity seabag, holding a paperback collection of The Federalist Papers and chatting with another libertarian-leaning conservative friend about the erosion of our freedoms, well .. I would have had to have been an blazing idiot to have done that. Even though None Of These Things Are Wrong.
It happens to others, as well. Recently, priests have had to cope with the other jerk tax. Whenever there’s a rumor or news story about dead neighborhood cats, goth kids face some hassle. It’s perfectly understandable, and most folks just realize that life will be a less fun for a short while.
But for as much as our nation’s newspapers have been obsessed with racism against Arabs, I don’t recall reading a single story cautioning readers against fear of white military men or priests. No lawsuits have been encouraged or filed by the editorial pages of the larger papers. If anything, these papers help to propagate their own favorite fears.
And that kind of bias is just stunning.
Comment by bob — 4/4/2004 @ 10:16 am
I flew about 3 weeks after 9/11 and you can bet I looked around. If the airlines are going to be sued then they’re less likely to take needed actions, and then if there’s another airplane based terror attack, they’ll be blamed for not being vigilant enough.
And what happens if ther’e’s a homicide bombing in a U.S. mall or theater? Will we be racist if the average joe in the mall isn’t a little more wary of someone Arab looking?
Comment by Ith — 4/4/2004 @ 3:52 pm
My husband’s name is Mike Johnson (i.e., an easy pseudonym), and he made the mistake of buying a really cheap and, thus, really weirdly routed, one way ticket to Indiana (he was going to the Indy 500, and was driving back with his dad. The one-way ticket there back-tracked thru Minnesota, Denver, Ky, and points unknown — you get the picture). He experienced massive delays and searches.
Then we traveled as a family to Florida on vacation the following summer, and it was quite apparent that we were “flagged” in the airlines’ systems. So, Mr. and Mrs. Whitebread from KCMO with three kids under 8 were subjected to everything but a strip search.
Yeah, I kinda beefed about it (after the fact, not at the air terminals!) — but I understood why they took the precautions they did. Much more so than when they “highly investigated” a 9 year old boy (none of his other family members were searched) and an 83 year old granny because of “random” search criteria.
Is it profiling — or is it statistical sampling?
Comment by cj — 4/5/2004 @ 12:20 am
There’s another side of the “[y]oung, angry-looking Arab males” description.
Ever hear of people reacting negatively to, “young, smiling, somewhat apologetic, sociable XXXXX males”?
There is nothing wrong with saying “I am part of a group that has problems” so long as it is also made clear “I am not part of those problems.” In the same way that I respect other cultures when I travel, apologize profusely for my inadvertant transgressions from local standards, and show my sincere appreciation for local hospitality and forbearance, I would also hope for such respect, courtesy, and appreciation myself — although (and crucially so) I do not feel entitled to this.
I’ve been a caucasian in Fiji, an American in France, a Mick in Scotland, and a Californian in Tennessee — while a smile and a shrug won’t get you a pass from the psychos and haters, it does get you a marked reduction in tension from most reasonable people.
So, before you put the wrong ak-SENT on the wrong syl-LABLE, remember that “Arab” is perhaps the least important word in “[y]oung, angry-looking Arab males”. Kaczynski wasn’t Arab. McVeigh wasn’t Arab. Amrozi wasn’t Arab. Each was, however, angry — anti-social, “entitled” and “elite”, wronged by circumstance in their own minds, rude, obnoxious, and deadly.
Accordingly, if people feel stigmatized by their inclusion in a problematic group (Arabs, blacks, whites, Irish…), they should take extra pains to be excluded from other groups (the violent, terrorists, “downtrodden”, or angry). Not only will they contribute to their own personal comfort by doing so, but they will also help to shape public opinion in regards to the others like them.
Comment by cthulhu — 4/5/2004 @ 12:23 am
RATIONAL DISCRIMINATION
Patterico looks at a recent Continental Airlines settlement in which Continental “agreed to settle a lawsuit accusing it of discrimination against travelers believed to have been of Arab, Middle Eastern or Southeast Asian descent after the September 11…
Trackback by Begging To Differ — 4/6/2004 @ 10:50 am
RATIONAL DISCRIMINATION
Patterico looks at a recent Continental Airlines settlement in which Continental “agreed to settle a lawsuit accusing it of discrimination against travelers believed to have been of Arab, Middle Eastern or Southeast Asian descent after the September 11…
Trackback by Begging To Differ — 4/6/2004 @ 10:53 am
RATIONAL DISCRIMINATION
Patterico looks at a recent Continental Airlines settlement in which Continental “agreed to settle a lawsuit accusing it of discrimination against travelers believed to have been of Arab, Middle Eastern or Southeast Asian descent after the September 11…
Trackback by Begging To Differ — 4/6/2004 @ 10:58 am
Sorry about the multiple trackbacks. Movable Type snafu, and all . . . . .
Comment by Balasubramani — 4/6/2004 @ 1:40 pm
No problem.
Comment by Patterico — 4/6/2004 @ 11:07 pm
I think that the real point is being missed in this discussion. The policy has nothing to do with rationality and, honestly, very little to do with making people safer (although other work has been done in this area).
This policy - and the whining self-abasement of PC government policy in general - is a sop to the race hustlers and anti-American “legal theorists” (read hard-left or simply opportunistic trial lawyers). *Any* departure from the perfection of our ideals is grounds for claiming that the entirety of the classical liberal project is bankrupt. At this stage in history, the defenders of the classical liberal project are still hoping to smile, act friendly and convince those who hate them that they are really good people after all. No matter how often facts are twisted or selectively used, no matter how often context is ignored, no matter how shallow the evidence, America and American policies are always wrong - especially when implemented by a Republican.
You - the people writing here and the vast majority of Americans of all races that you represent - don’t really matter much. This is about the abstract defense of “rights,” not about “Democracy.” If you die, it doesn’t matter. The leaders running the policy are more concerned with avoiding the discomfort of lawsuits, political witch-hunts and accusations of racism.
They’ll act only if a lot of us die at once. And even then any action they take to prevent it from happening again will face the sustained, vicious smear campaign (”BUSH LIED”). America is too powerful. It must be brought low for “fairness” to reign and utopia to be achieved.
(No, I don’t believe this, I’m simply observing the world).
Comment by WildMonk — 7/17/2004 @ 9:17 am
Where Angels Fear to Tread
The time has come to write about Annie Jacobson, “Terror in the Skies,” and Flight 327 from Detroit to Los Angeles. As most of you know, Jacobson wrote a harrowing account of a flight in late June that appeared to…
Trackback by Little Miss Attila — 7/27/2004 @ 3:33 pm