The examples and perspective in this article deal primarily with the United States and do not represent a worldwide view of the subject. Please improve this article and discuss the issue on the talk page. (December 2010)

The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. (April 2012)

Racial profiling refers to the use of an individual’s race or ethnicity by law enforcement personnel as a key factor in deciding whether to engage in enforcement (e.g. make a traffic stop or arrest). The practice is controversial and is illegal in some nations.

Definition[link]

The concept of racial profiling has been defined in many ways, including:

• "Any police-initiated action that relies on the race, ethnicity, or national origin rather than the behavior of an individual or information that leads the police to a particular individual who has been identified as being, or having been, engaged in criminal activity." _{-Deborah Ramirez, Jack McDevitt, Amy Farrell for US DoJ}^[1]

• "Racially-biased policing occurs when law enforcement inappropriately considers race or ethnicity in deciding with whom and how to intervene in an enforcement capacity."_{-Lorie Fridell, Robert Lunney, Drew Diamond and Bruce Kubu}^[2]

• "Using race as a key factor in deciding whether to make a traffic stop." _{-General Accounting Office}^[3]

• "In the literature to date, there appear to be at least two clearly distinguishable definitions of the term 'racial profiling': a narrow definition and a broad definition... Under the narrow definition, racial profiling occurs when a police officer stops, questions, arrests, and/or searches someone solely on the basis of the person's race or ethnicity... Under the broader definition, racial profiling occurs whenever police routinely use race as a factor that, along with an accumulation of other factors, causes an officer to react with suspicion and take action."_{-Jim Cleary}^[4]

• "Use by law enforcement personnel of an individual’s race or ethnicity as a factor in articulating reasonable suspicion to stop, question or arrest an individual, unless race or ethnicity is part of an identifying description of a specific suspect for a specific crime." _{-Office of the Arizona Attorney General}^[5]

In the United States[link]

Legality[link]

At a Federal level, racial profiling is challenged by the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution which guarantees the right to be safe from unreasonable search and seizure without probable cause and the Fourteenth Amendment which requires that all citizens be treated equally under the law.

In his February 27, 2001, address to a Joint Session of Congress, President George W. Bush declared, "Racial profiling is wrong, and we will end it in America. In so doing, we will not hinder the work of our nation's brave police officers. They protect us every day -- often at great risk. But by stopping the abuses of a few, we will add to the public confidence our police officers earn and deserve."^[6]

In June 2001, the Bureau of Justice Assistance, a component of the Office of Justice Programs, United States Department of Justice, awarded the Northeastern research team a grant to create this web-based Racial Profiling Data Collection Resource Center. It now maintains a website designed to be a central clearinghouse for police agencies, legislators, community leaders, social scientists, legal researchers, and journalists to access information about current data collection efforts, legislation and model policies, police-community initiatives, and methodological tools that can be used to collect and analyze racial profiling data. The website contains information on the background of data collection, jurisdictions currently collecting data, community groups, legislation that is pending and enacted in states across the country, and has information on planning and implementing data collection procedures, training officers in to implement these systems, and analyzing and reporting the data and results.^[7]

On February 28, 2002, Attorney General John Ashcroft said "This administration... has been opposed to racial profiling and has done more to indicate its opposition than ever in history. The President said it’s wrong and we’ll end it in America, and I subscribe to that. Using race… as a proxy for potential criminal behavior is unconstitutional, and it undermines law enforcement undermining the confidence that people can have in law enforcement."^[6]

In June 2003, the Department of Justice issued its Guidance Regarding the Use of Race by Federal Law Enforcement Agencies forbidding racial profiling by federal law enforcement officials.^[8]

Several U.S. states now have reporting requirements. Texas, for example requires all agencies to provide annual reports to its Law Enforcement Commission. The requirement began on September 1, 2001, when the State of Texas passed a law to require all law enforcement agencies in the State to begin collecting certain data in connection to traffic or pedestrian stops beginning on January 1, 2002. Based on that data, the law mandated law enforcement agencies to submit a report to the law enforcement agencies' governing body beginning March 1, 2003 and each year thereafter no later than March 1. The law is found in the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure beginning with Article 2.131.^[9] Additionally, on January 1, 2011, all law enforcement agencies began submitting annual reports to the Texas State Law Enforcement Officers Standards and Education Commission. The submitted reports can be accessed on the Commission's website for public review.^[10]

History of Policies[link]

Threatened homeland security has been a constant reason to enact policies that permit racial profiling over the years. The history of racial profiling has roots established as early as the beginning of Japanese Interment and in many Supreme Court Cases such as the Terry v. Ohio in 1968. This case gave police officers the agency to stop suspects without probable cause to conduct searches and seizures without violating the Fourth Amendment. The connection of immigrant communities becoming racially profiled as a result of such policies have more recently developed in the passage of policies like the Patriot Act in 2001 and SB1070 in 2010.

Post 9/11, the racial profiling of the Muslim community has occurred under the guise of the Patriot Act passed in order to ensure homeland security.^[11] Border security issues gave rise to the passage of propositions 187 in 1994 and proposition 227 in 1998 (Department of Sociology at the University of California, Riverside). After the passage of SB1070, Mexican immigrant communities in Arizona have been targeted through the practice of racial profiling.^[12] Thinking of the notions homeland security and what it means to be an illegal alien creates a dialogue towards understanding why policies have been enacted to target immigrant communities of color for many years in the United States.

SB 1070[link]

In April 2010, Arizona enacted a law that would require law-enforcement officers to verify the citizenship of individuals they stop if they have reasonable suspicion. SB1070 was a way to help maintain control of immigration problems facing the United States. The law specifically states that “Any person who is arrested shall have the person’s immigration status determined before the person is released”. United States federal law requires that all aliens who remain in the United States for more than 30 days are to register with the U.S. government and to have all registration documents with them at all time. Arizona made it a misdemeanor crime for an alien 14 years of age and older to be found without carrying these documents at all times. Critics of this policy have questioned “what will the statute's effect on those who are legal residents of the United States?” A concern from this is that law-enforcement officials may not consider “race, color, or national origin” in the enforcement of the law, except under the circumstances allowed under the United States and Arizona constitutions.^[13] The Arizona Senate Bill 1070 has effect the Latino and Arab or Middle Eastern communities are the most affected due to certain preconceptions, beliefs and stereotypes.

Support[link]

Naiz Khan, target of an FBI terror investigation alleges racial profiling -- and lost his job as a result. In this image he is speaking at a press conference in Flushing, Queens.

Many in the law enforcement community argue that although unfortunate, the use of ethnic and racial profiling is both effective and necessary. The argument is made that due to socio-economic and demographic factors as unfortunate and undesirable as it might be, crime is simply higher in some communities that have a large minority population and that to ignore that fact due to a sense of moral integrity would be both morally and professionally wrong. As an example, an airport interdiction task force at Los Angeles International Airport compiled a report of those arrested based solely on officer observations, and when that report was compared to one of those arrested based on alerts driven by the airline passenger alert computer system the percentages were almost identical. Examples such as these support the conclusion that although factors such as race may be taken into account, it does not necessarily indicate that a prejudicial bias is present.

If the success of law enforcement is defined as identifying and taking action against violators, then racial profiling would allow officers to be more effective.^[14]

A majority of Americans support profiling as necessary "in today's society".^[15]

Criticism[link]

Critics of racial profiling argue that the individual rights of a suspect are violated if race is used as a factor in that suspicion. Notably, civil liberties organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) have stated that racial profiling is a form of discrimination, stating, "Discrimination based on race, ethnicity, religion, nationality or on any other particular identity undermines the basic human rights and freedoms to which every person is entitled."^[16]

Critics argue that individuals should not be more or less likely to encounter law enforcement officers or other government agents based on racial or ethnic traits.

Responding to such criticisms are local community groups who seek to collect data, analyze trends and how they might correspond to public perceptions of profiling, and solicit ideas aimed at diminishing cultural and racial biases.^[17]

In practice[link]

• Despite promises to the contrary before the September 11 attacks in 2001, racial profiling surged during the presidency of George W. Bush, coinciding with the initiation of the War on Terror. Claims of profiling have been particularly focused on Naturalization, Customs, and Border Patrol agents accused of making Muslims' entry or re-entry into the United States more difficult and pressure-laden than that of their peers. According to a 2011 report from Brown University, this sort of profiling has been encouraged in public discourse by political TV personalities like Bill O'Reilly.^{[citation needed]}

• The airline ticketing agent who checked in Mohamed Atta, the leader of the September 11 attacks, and a companion, would afterwards say that looking at the pair his first reaction was to think, "If this doesn't look like two Arab terrorists, I've never seen two Arab terrorists." But he immediately felt guilty, and had no legal grounds to search on the basis of their suspicious appearance had he wished to.^[18]

• In December 2001, an American citizen of Middle Eastern descent named Assem Bayaa cleared all the security checks at Los Angeles airport and attempted to board a flight to New York. Upon boarding, he was told that he made the passengers uncomfortable by being on board the plane and was asked to leave. Once off the plane, he wasn't searched or questioned any further and the only consolation he was given was a boarding pass for the next flight. He filed a lawsuit on the basis of discrimination against United Airlines. United Airlines filed a counter motion which was dismissed by a district judge on October 11, 2002. In June 2005, the ACLU announced a settlement between Bayaa and United Airlines who still disputed Bayaa's allegations, but noted that the settlement "was in the best interest of all".^[19]

• In the case of racial profiling drivers, also known as "Driving While Black", the police officers’ judgments suggest biased policing on colored drivers.^[20] The term "Driving While Black" arose as a play on the U.S Crime "Driving While Intoxicated". It refers to the Criminalization of black drivers. Black drivers felt that they were being pulled over by law enforcement officers simply because of their skin color. Police officers observe many traffic violations throughout the day but they do not pull over every violator they see. So what triggers officers to decide whom to pull over? “Fear of crime itself,” explains a police officer whom stops African Americans or other colored races.^[20] A good example is the one of Québécois Joel Debellefeuille. Joel was pulled over by a police officer. The police report stated that the Québécois name "didn't match his skin tone."^[21] However, some argue the “veil of darkness” hypothesis, which states that police are less likely to know the race of a driver before they make a stop at nighttime as opposed to in the daytime. Referring the veil of darkness hypothesis, it is suggested that if the race distribution of drivers stopped during the day differs from that of drivers stopped at night, officers are engaging in racial profiling. For example, in one study done by Jeffrey Grogger and Greg Ridgeway, the veil of darkness hypothesis was used to determine whether or not racial profiling in traffic stops occurs in Oakland, California. If they know the racial variation in traffic patterns, driving behavior, and police intervention, then they can determine whether or not racial profiling occurs in the traffic stops made during the daytime and after dark. The conductors found that there was little evidence of racial profiling in traffic stops made in this particular city.^[22] Legislation has been proposed with the intent of ending racial profiling in traffic stops. There have been many states that have begun collecting data on the details of the traffic stops in order to monitor racial profiling. Profiling is on an individual basis and it is difficult to pinpoint the cause of arrests or stops since the studies allow officers to change their behavior accordingly. For example, in the court case of City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, Adolf Lyons was stopped by police officers because of a faulty taillight; police officers choked him until he was unconscious.^[23] Plaintiffs in the case promoted equality yet it was ultimately dependent on appearance and race. “Driving While Black” can be significantly defeated when the public comes together to take a stance against the racial profiling the African American and Latino population face. When the public voices their opinions on this issue and begins to stir up controversy, the media will become involved. This media coverage can make or break the police departments and government officials behind the “driving while black” scandal. In a recent journal comparing the 1990s to the present, studies have proven that when the community criticized police for targeting the black community during traffic stops it received more media coverage and toned down racial profiling. However, whenever there was a significant lack of media coverage or concern with racial profiling, the amount of arrests and traffic stops for the African-American community would significantly rise again.^[24]

Urban Communities[link]

Inner city residents of Latino communities are subjected to racial profiling because of theories such as the “gang suppression model”. The “gang suppression model” is often the basis for increased policing because the theory is based on the idea that Latinos are violent and out of control and therefore “in need of suppression”.^[25] Based on research, the criminalization of a people can lead to abuses of power on behalf of law enforcement.^[25]

On some occasions immigration authorities are known to target the residents of barrios with the use of violent and discriminatory policing based on racial profiling practices. There has been research done through random sampling in the South Tucson, Arizona area where this is the case.^[25] Immigration raids are often carried out at places of gathering and cultural expression such as grocery stores based on the fluency of language of a person (e.g. being bilingual especially in Spanish) and skin color of a person.^[26] Often the immigration raids are done with a disregard to due-process. These raids lead people from these communities to distrust law enforcement and not see them as a source of security and justice.^[26]

Islamophobia[link]

Legality[link]

It is clear that the U.S. Constitution prohibits discrimination based on race, but the racial profiling of the Islamic community continues and has grown since 9/11. As Samuel Gross and Debra Livingston argue, since September 11, the meaning of racial profiling changed and “is more likely to mean security checks or federal investigations that target Muslim men from Middle Eastern countries, in order to try to catch terrorist.” They also claim that there has been an increase in support for racial profiling. Before the attacks, more than 80% of Americans were against racial profiling and now more than 60% are in favor.^[27] This means more support for the USA Patriot Act of 2001 which “has undermined many of the fundamental constitutional rights of Arab and South Asian Americans."^[28] The Patriot Act used terrorism and national security as an excuse to make it legal to target Muslim communities.

Since the attacks of 9/11, the word terrorist has been associated with Muslim, and the Patriot Act was made to stop “terrorists” from harming the US. Because of the Patriot Act, “Arabs, Arab Americans and Muslims were disproportionately subjected to a myriad of abuses including secret evidence, denial of due process, indefinite detentions, airline profiling, illegal wiretapping and surveillance."^[29] The FBI and INS have arrested more than a thousand noncitizens which mostly happened to be Arab and/or Muslim even though they had no reason to arrest them.

In Practice[link]

The attacks on the World Trade Center on September 11 has led to targeting of Muslims in the United States as potential terrorists. Muslims and other Middle Easterners are profiled as potential terrorist and are targeted by the national government through preventive measures similar to those practiced by local law enforcement.^[30] The national government has passed laws, such as the Patriot Act of 2001, to increase surveillance of potential threats to national threat as a result of the events that occurred during 9/11.^[31] It is argued that the passage of these laws and provisions by the national government leads to justification of preventative methods, such as racial profiling, that has been controversial for racial profiling and leads to further minority distrust in the national government.^[32] One of the techniques used by the FBI to target Muslims was monitoring 100 mosques and business in Washington DC and threatened to deport Muslims who did not agree to serve as informers.^[33] The FBI denied to be taking part of blanket profiling and argued that they were trying to build trust within the Muslim community.^[34]

The events of 9/11 also led to restrictions on immigration laws.^[35] The government imposed stricter immigration quotas to maintain national security at their national borders. In 2002, men over sixteen years old who entered the country from twenty-five Middle Eastern countries and North Korea were required to be photographed, fingerprinted, interviewed and have their financial information copied, and had to register again before leaving the country.^[36]

Criminal Profiling[link]

When confronted with accusations of racial profiling the police don’t believe that they participate in it. They believe that they use numerous factors (such as race, interactions, and dress) to determine if a person is involved in criminal activity. They conclude that the job of policing is far more imperative then to continuously worry about minorities or interest groups crying foul or complaining about being victims of unfair targeting.^[37]

Law Enforcement[link]

Racial profiling not only occurs on the streets how also in many Institutions. Much like the book "Famous all over Town" where the author Danny Santiago mentions this type of Racism throughout the novel. Racial Profiling is huge in Law Enforcement, where this type of behavior can risk the lives of innocent people. In a trusted source it says here "It is argued that, given the assumption that criminals are currently being punished too severely in Western countries, the apprehension of more criminals may not constitute a reason in favor of racial profiling at all."(Ryberg) It has been stated in a scholarly journal that for over 30 years the use of racial and/or demographic profiling by local authorities and higher level law enforcement's continue to proceed. NYPD Street cops use racial profiling more often, due to the widespread patterns. They first frisk them to check whether they have enough evidence to be even arrested for the relevant crime. "As a practical matter, the stops display a measurable racial disparity: black and Hispanic people generally represent more than 85 percent of those stopped by the police, though their combined populations make up a small share of the city’s racial composition."(Baker)

Some general examples of racial profiling by police[link]

A few examples of racial profiling by police include: • An African American man standing on a corner waiting for a bus is stopped and questioned regarding why he is standing there and where he is going. • A Hispanic driver is stopped in a “white” neighbourhood because he “doesn’t belong there” or “looks out of place.” • A group of black teenagers are pulled over because of the kind of car they are driving. • Any person of color stopped for minor traffic violations and then questioned about where there are going, or if they have illegal drugs or weapons in their possession. Racial profiling is also used as a basis of discrimination for employment, services, housing, etc., or to give preferential treatment to an individual or group of people because of their race or ethnicity.^[37]

Racial profiling in practice[link]

On September 14, 2001, an Indian American motorist and three family members were pulled over and ticketed by a Maryland state trooper because their car had broken taillights. The trooper interrogated the family, questioned them about their nationality, and asked for proof of citizenship. When the motorist said that their passports were at home, the officer allegedly stated, "You are lying. You are Arabs involved in terrorism." He ordered them out of the car, had them put their hands on the hood, and searched the car. When he discovered a knife in a toolbox, the officer handcuffed the driver and later reported that the driver "wore and carried a butcher knife, a dangerous deadly weapon, concealed upon and about his person." The driver was detained for several hours but eventually released.^[38]

Empirical evidence[link]

Statistical data demonstrates, that although policing practices and policies vary widely across the United States, a large disparity between racial groups in regards to traffic stops and searches. However, whether this is disparity is due to racial profiling or the fact that different races are involved in crime in different rates, is still highly debated. Based on academic search, various studies have been conducted regarding the existence of racial profiling in traffic and pedestrian stops.For motor vehicle searches academic research showed that the probability of a successful search is very similar across races. This suggests that police officers are not motivated by racial preferences but by the desire to maximize the probability of a successful search. Similar evidence has been found for pedestrian stops, with identical ratios of stops to arrests for different races.^[14][39] Because of the controversial nature if this topic various studies yielded different results. The studies have been published in various Academic Journals aimed towards Academic professionals as well practitioners such as law enforcers. Some of these journals include, Police Quarterly and the Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, so that both sides of the argument are present and evaluated. Of those gathered the most noted study refuting racial profiling was the conducted using the veil of darkness hypothesis stating that it will be difficult, if not impossible, for officers to discern race in the twilight hours. The results of this study concluded that the ratio of different races stopped by New York cops is about the same for all races tested.^[40] Some of the most referenced organizations, who offer evidence on the existence of racial profiling, noted are The American Civil Liberties Union, which has conducted studies various major U.S. cities, and RAND. In a study conducted in have Cincinnati, Ohio it was concluded that “Blacks were between three and five times more likely to (a) be asked if they were carrying drugs or weapons, (b) be asked to leave the vehicle, (c) be searched, (d) have a passenger searched, and (e) have the vehicle physically searched in a study conducted. This conclusion was based on the analysis of 313, randomly selected, traffic stop police tapes gathered from 2003 to 2004.^[41]

Public Opinion[link]

Perceptions of Race and Safety[link]

In a particular study, Higgins, Gabbidon, and Vito studied the relationship between public opinion on racial profiling in conjunction with their viewpoint of race relations and their perceived awareness of safety. It was found that race relations had a statistical correlation with the legitimacy of racial profiling. Specifically, results showed that those who believed that racial profiling was widespread and that racial tension would never be fixed were more likely to be opposed to racial profiling than those who did not believe racial profiling was as widespread or that racial tensions would be fixed eventually. On the other hand, in reference to perception of safety, the research concluded that one’s perception of safety had no influence on public opinion of racial profiling. Higgins, Gabbidon, and Vito acknowledge that this may not have been the case immediately after 9/11, but state that any support of racial profiling based on safety was “short-lived”.^[42]

Influence of Religious Affiliation[link]

One particular study focused on individuals who self-identified as religiously affiliated and their relationship with racial profiling. By using national survey data from October 2001, researcher Phillip H. Kim studied which individuals were more likely to support racial profiling. The research concludes that individuals that identified themselves as either Jewish, Catholic, or Protestant showed higher statistical numbers that illustrated support for racial profiling in comparison to individuals who identified themselves as non-religious.^[43]

The Context of Terrorism and Crime[link]

After the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, according to Johnson, a new debate concerning the appropriateness of racial profiling in the context of terrorism took place. According to Johnson, prior to the September 11, 2001 attacks the debate on racial profiling within the public targeted primarily African-Americans and Latino Americans with enforced policing on crime and drugs. The attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon changed the focus of the racial profiling debate from street crime and “driving while Black” to terrorism and “flying while Arab.” According to a June 4–5, 2002 FOX News/Opinion Dynamics Poll, 54% of Americans approved of using “racial profiling to screen Arab male airline passengers.” A 2002 survey by Public Agenda tracked the attitudes toward the racial profiling of Blacks and people of Middle Eastern descent. In this survey, 52% of Americans said there was “no excuse” for law enforcement to look at African Americans with greater suspicion and scrutiny because they believe they are more likely to commit crimes, but only 21% said there was “no excuse” for extra scrutiny of Middle Eastern people.^[44]

However, using data from an internet survey based experiment performed in 2006 on a random sample of 574 adult university students, a study was conducted that examined public approval for the use of racial profiling to prevent crime and terrorism. It was found that approximately one third of students approved the use of racial profiling in general. Furthermore, it was found that students were equally likely to approve of the use of racial profiling to prevent crime as to prevent terrorism-33% and 35.8% respectively. The survey also asked respondents whether they would approve of racial profiling across different investigative contexts. It was found that 23.8% of people approved of law enforcement using racial profiling as a means to stop and question someone in a terrorism context while 29.9% of people approved of racial profiling in a crime context for the same situation. It was found that 25.3% of people approved of law enforcement using racial profiling as a means to search someone’s bags or packages in a terrorism context while 33.5% of people approved of racial profiling in a crime context for the same situation. It was also found that 16.3% of people approved of law enforcement wire tapping a person’s phone based upon racial profiling in the context of terrorism while 21.4% of people approved of racial profiling in a crime context for the same situation. It was also found that 14.6% of people approved of law enforcement searching someone’s home based upon racial profiling in a terrorism context while 18.2% of people approved of racial profiling in a crime context for the same situation.^[44]

The study also found that white students were more likely to approve of racial profiling to prevent terrorism than nonwhite students. However, it was found that white students and nonwhite students held the same views about racial profiling in the context of crime. It was also found that foreign born students were less likely to approve of racial profiling to prevent terrorism than non-foreign born students while both groups shared similar views on racial profiling in the context of crime.^[44]

In other countries[link]

Canada[link]

Accusations of racial profiling of visible minorities who accuse police of targeting them due to their ethnic background is a growing concern in Canada. In 2005, the Kingston Police released the first study ever in Canada which pertains to racial profiling. The study focused on in the city of Kingston, a small city where most of the inhabitants are white. The study showed that black skinned people were 3.7 times more likely to be pulled over by police than white skinned people, while Asian people were less likely to be pulled over than whites or blacks.^[45] Several police organizations condemned this study and suggested more studies like this would make them hesitant to pull over visible minorities.

Canadian Aboriginals are more likely to be charged with crimes, particularly on reserves. The Canadian crime victimization survey does not collect data on the ethnic origin of perpetrators, so comparisons between incidence of victimizations and incidence of charging are impossible.^[46] Although aboriginal persons make up 3.6% of Canada's population, they account for 20% of Canada's prison population. This may show how racial profiling increases effectiveness of police, or be a result of racial profiling, as they are watched more intensely than others.^[47]

In February 2010, an investigation of the Toronto Star daily newspaper found that black people across Toronto were three times more likely to be stopped and documented by police than white people. To a lesser extent, the same seemed true for people described by police as having "brown" skin. This was the result of an analysis of 1.7 million contact cards filled out by Toronto Police officers in the period 2003 - 2008.^[48]

The Ontario Human Rights Commission states that "police services have acknowledged that racial profiling does occur and have taken [and are taking] measures to address [the issue], including upgrading training for officers, identifying officers at risk of engaging in racial profiling, and improving community relations"^[49](Griffiths, 2008, p. 311). Ottawa Police addressed this issue and planned on implementing a new policy regarding officer racially profiling persons, "the policy explicitly forbids officers from investigating or detaining anyone based on their race and will force officers to go through training on racial profiling"^[50](CTV News, 2011). This policy was implemented after the 2008 incident where an African-Canadian woman was strip searched by members of the Ottawa police. There is a video showing the strip search where one witnesses the black woman being held to the ground and the having her bra and shirt cut ripped/cut off by a member of the Ottawa Police Force which was released to the viewing of the public in 2010^[51](CTV News, 2011).

See also[link]

• Affirmative action
• Contempt of cop
• De-policing
• Driving While Black
• Police misconduct
• Race and crime in the United States
• Arrest of Henry Louis Gates
• Edward C. Lawson

References[link]

Resources[link]

Jeff Shantz. 2010. Racial Profiling and Borders: International, Interdisciplinary Perspectives (Lake Mary: Vandeplas).

Ronald Weitzer and Steven Tuch. 2006. Race and Policing in America: Conflict and Reform (New York: Cambridge University Press).

Ryberg, Jesper. "Racial Profiling And Criminal Justice." Journal Of Ethics 15.1/2 (2011): 79-88. Academic Search Premier. Web. 26 Apr. 2012.

Ruiz, James, Jason W. Julseth, and Kathleen H. Winters. "Profiling, Cajun Style: The FBI Investigation?." International Journal Of Police Science & Management 12.3 (2010): 401-425. Academic Search Premier. Web. 26 Apr. 2012.

Baker, Al. "Judge Declines to Dismiss Case Alleging Racial Profiling by City Police in Street Stops." The New York Times. Nytimes.com, 31 Aug. 2011. Web. 26 Apr. 2012. <www.nytimes.com>.

Resources[link]

Jeff Shantz. 2010. Racial Profiling and Borders: International, Interdisciplinary Perspectives (Lake Mary: Vandeplas).

External links[link]

This article includes a list of references, but its sources remain unclear because it has insufficient inline citations. Please help to improve this article by introducing more precise citations. (February 2008)

• An Investigation by the Joint Legislative Task Force on Government Oversight into Racial Profiling Practices by the California Highway Patrol as part of a program known as Operation Pipeline
• Bureau of Justice Criminal Offender Statistics
• Rational Profiling in America's Airports (Law Review Article)
• CBC backgrounder on racial profiling in Canada.
• "Ethnic Profiling: A Rational and Moral Framework", by Robert A. Levy (Cato Institute, October 2, 2001)
• "Racial Profiling in an Age of Terrorism", By Peter Siggins (Markkula Center for Applied Ethics, March 12, 2002)

Chuck D
Chuck D and Flavor Flav performing at the Bilbao Urban Musikaldia, Vista Alegre bullring on October 8, 2006.
Background information
Birth name	Carlton Douglas Ridenhour
Also known as	Carl Ryder (as a member of production team The Bomb Squad), Mistachuck, Chucky D, Chuck Dangerous, The Hard Rhymer, The Rhyme Animal,
Born	(1960-08-01) August 1, 1960 (age 51)
Origin	Roosevelt, New York, United States
Genres	Hip hop
Occupations	Rapper, publisher, lecturer, activist, record producer
Years active	1986–present
Associated acts	Public Enemy, Confrontation Camp, Fine Arts Militia, Immortal Technique, Sonic Youth, Sister Souljah, KRS-One, Living Colour, Vanilla Ice, Ludacris
Website	http://www.publicenemy.com

Carlton Douglas Ridenhour (born August 1, 1960), better known by his stage name, Chuck D, is an American rapper, author,^[1] and producer. He helped create politically and socially conscious rap music in the mid-1980s as the leader of the rap group Public Enemy.

Early life[link]

Ridenhour was born in Queens, New York.^[2] After graduating from Roosevelt Junior-Senior High School, he went to Adelphi University on Long Island to study graphic design. He is the son of Lorenzo Ridenhour.

Career[link]

Upon hearing Ridenhour's demo track "Public Enemy Number One", fledgling producer/upcoming music-mogul Rick Rubin insisted on signing him to his Def Jam label.^[3]

Their major label albums were: Yo! Bum Rush the Show (1987), It Takes a Nation of Millions to Hold Us Back (1988), Fear of a Black Planet (1990), Apocalypse 91... The Enemy Strikes Black (1991), Greatest Misses (1992), and Muse Sick-n-Hour Mess Age (1994). They also released a full length album soundtrack for the film He Got Game in 1998. Ridenhour also contributed (as Chuck D) to several episodes of the PBS documentary series The Blues. He has appeared as a featured artist on many other songs and albums, having collaborated with artists such as Janet Jackson, Kool Moe Dee, The Dope Poet Society, Run-DMC, Ice Cube, Rage Against The Machine, Anthrax, John Mellencamp and many others. In 1990, he appeared on "Kool Thing", a song by the alternative rock band Sonic Youth. In 1993, he executive produced Got 'Em Running Scared, an album by Ichiban Records group Chief Groovy Loo and the Chosen Tribe.^[4]

Later career[link]

In 1996, Ridenhour released Autobiography of Mistachuck on Mercury Records. Chuck D made a rare appearance at the 1998 MTV Video Music Awards, presenting the Video Vanguard Award to the Beastie Boys, whilst commending their musicianship. In November 1998, he settled out of court with Christopher "The Notorious B.I.G." Wallace's estate over the latter's sampling of his voice in the song "Ten Crack Commandments". The specific sampling is Ridenhour counting off the numbers one to nine on the track "Shut 'Em Down".^[5]

In September 1999, he launched a multi-format "supersite" on the web site Rapstation.com. A home for the vast global hip hop community, the site boasts a TV and radio station with original programming, many of hip hop's most prominent DJs, celebrity interviews, free MP3 downloads (the first was contributed by multi-platinum rapper Coolio), downloadable ringtones by ToneThis, social commentary, current events, and regular features on turning rap careers into a viable living. Since 2000, he has been one of the most vocal supporters of peer-to-peer file sharing in the music industry.

He loaned his voice to Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas as DJ Forth Right MC for the radio station Playback FM. In 2000, he collaborated with Public Enemy's Gary G-Whiz and MC Lyte on the theme music to the television show Dark Angel. He appeared with Henry Rollins in a cover of Black Flag's "Rise Above" for the album Rise Above: 24 Black Flag Songs to Benefit the West Memphis Three. He was also featured on Z-Trip's album Shifting Gears on a track called "Shock and Awe"; a 12-inch of the track was released featuring artwork by Shepard Fairey. In 2008 he contributed a chapter to Sound Unbound: Sampling Digital Music and Culture (The MIT Press, 2008) edited by Paul D. Miller a.k.a. DJ Spooky, and also turned up on The Go! Team's album Proof of Youth on the track "Flashlight Fight." He also fulfilled his childhood dreams of being a sports announcer by performing the play-by-play commentary in the video game NBA Ballers: Chosen One on Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3.

In 2009, Ridenhour wrote the foreword to the book The Love Ethic: The Reason Why You Can't Find and Keep Beautiful Black Love by Kamau and Akilah Butler. He also appeared on Brother Ali's album, Us.^[6]

In an interview on Conspiracy Worldwide Radio in late 2009, Chuck D spoke of his forthcoming projects and how he wanted to focus upon his label SlamJamz in 2010.^[7]

In a follow-up October 31, 2010 interview, Chuck discussed the importance of Public Enemy's tour in South Africa and his range of projects expected in 2011.^[8]

In March 2011, Chuck D re-recorded vocals with The Dillinger Escape Plan for a cover of "Fight the Power".

Chuck D duetted with Rock singer Meat Loaf on his 2011 album Hell In A Handbasket on the song "Mad Mad World/The Good God is a Woman and She Don't Like Ugly".

Rapping technique[link]

Chuck D has noted that he often comes up with a title for a song first, in the books How to Rap and Check the Technique^[9][10] and that he writes on paper, though he sometimes edits using a computer.^[11] He also prefers to not punch in vocals,^[12] and he prefers to not overdub vocals.^[13] Chuck D is known for his powerful rapping voice - How to Rap says, “Chuck D of Public Enemy has a powerful, resonant voice that is often acclaimed as one of the most distinct and impressive in hip-hop”,^[14] and Chuck D says this was based on listening to Melle Mel and sportscasters such as Marv Albert.^[14]

Politics[link]

Ridenhour is politically active; he co-hosted Unfiltered on Air America Radio, testified before Congress in support of peer-to-peer MP3 sharing, and was involved in a 2004 rap political convention. He continues to be an activist, publisher, lecturer, and producer. Addressing the negative views associated with rap music, he co-wrote the essay book Fight the Power: Rap, Race, and Reality, along with Yusuf Jah (ISBN 0-385-31868-5). He argues that "music and art and culture is escapism, and escapism sometimes is healthy for people to get away from reality", but sometimes the distinction is blurred and that's when "things could lead a young mind in a direction."^[15] He also founded the record company Slam Jamz and acted as narrator in Kareem Adouard's short film Bling: Consequences and Repercussions, which examines the role of conflict diamonds in bling fashion.

In an interview with Le Monde published January 29, 2008,^[16] Chuck D stated that rap is devolving so much into a commercial enterprise, that the relationship between the rapper and the record label is that of slave to a master. He believes that nothing has changed for African-Americans since the debut of Public Enemy and, although he thinks that an Obama-Clinton alliance is great, he does not feel that the establishment will allow anything of substance to be accomplished. He also stated that French President Sarkozy is like any other European elite: he has profited through the murder, rape, and pillaging of those less fortunate and he refuses to allow equal opportunity for those men and women from Africa. In this article, he also defended a comment made by Professor Griff in the past that he says was taken out of context by the media. The real statement was a critique of the Israeli government and its treatment of the Palestinian people. Chuck D stated that it is Public Enemy's belief that all human beings are equal.

In an interview with the magazine N'Digo published in late June 2008, he spoke of today's mainstream urban music seemingly relishing the addictive euphoria of materialism and sexism, perhaps being the primary cause of many people harboring resentment towards the genre and its future. However he has expressed hope for its resurrection, saying "It’s only going to be dead if it doesn’t talk about the messages of life as much as the messages of death and non-movement", citing artists such as NYOil, M.I.A. and the The Roots as socially conscious artists who push the envelope creatively. "A lot of cats are out there doing it, on the Web and all over. They’re just not placing their career in the hands of some major corporation."^[17]

Most recently Chuck D became involved in Let Freedom Sing: The Music of the Civil Rights, a 3-CD box set from Time Life. He wrote the introduction to the liner notes and is visiting colleges across the nation discussing the significance of the set. He's also set to appear in a follow up movie called Let Freedom Sing: The Music That Inspired the Civil Rights Movement.

In 2010, Chuck D released a track entitled "Tear Down That Wall". He said, “I talked about the wall not only just dividing the U.S. and Mexico but the states of California, New Mexico and Texas. But Arizona, it's like, come on. Now they're going to enforce a law that talks about basically racial profiling.”^[18]

He is on the board of the TransAfrica Forum a Pan African organization that works for the right of Africa, Caribbean and Latin American issues.

Personal life[link]

Gaye Theresa Johnson

Chuck D is married to Gaye Theresa Johnson, an assistant professor in the Department of Black Studies at the University of California, Santa Barbara.^[19][20]

Chuck is a vegetarian.^[21][22]

TV appearances[link]

• Narrated and appeared on-camera for the 2005 PBS documentary Harlem Globetrotters: The Team That Changed the World.
• Appeared on-camera for the PBS program Independent Lens: Hip-Hop: Beyond Beats and Rhymes.
• Appeared in an episode of NewsRadio as himself.
• He appeared on The Henry Rollins Show.
• He was a featured panelist (with Lars Ulrich) on the May 12, 2000 episode of the Charlie Rose show. Host Charlie Rose was discussing the Internet, copyright infringement, Napster Inc., and the future of the music industry.^[23]
• He appeared on an episode of Space Ghost Coast to Coast with Pat Boone. While there, Space Ghost tried (and failed) to show he was "hip" to rap, saying his favorite rapper was M. C. Escher.
• He appeared on an episode of Johnny Bravo.
• He appeared via satellite to the UK, as a panelist on BBC's Newsnight on January 20, 2009, following Barack Obama's Inauguration.^[24]
• He Appeared on VH1 Ultimate Albums Blood Sugar Sex Magik talking about the Red Hot Chili Peppers.

Film appearances[link]

• He is the narrator of the 2006 documentary Quilombo Country, directed by Leonard Abrams.
• He is prominently featured in Hip Hop: Beyond Beats and Rhymes, a 2006 documentary by Byron Hurt.
• He is prominently featured in the 2008 film The Black Candle, directed by M.K. Asante, Jr. and narrated by Maya Angelou.
• He is featured in a web mini-series called On The Real Off The Record, produced by The Real News Network, June 1, 2009.
• He played a bank robber named "Malcolm Y" in an unused plotline for the movie Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy, which was eventually released straight-to-DVD as Wake Up, Ron Burgundy: The Lost Movie.
• He appeared in An Alan Smithee Film: Burn Hollywood Burn.
• He is featured in the 1997 documentary Rhyme & Reason about rap and hip hop.

Music appearances[link]

• In 2010, Chuck D made an appearance on the track "Transformação" (Portuguese for "Transformation") from Brazilian rapper MV Bill's album Causa E Efeito (pt:Causa e Efeito, meaning Cause And Effect).
• In 1990, Chuck D appeared on the Sonic Youth song and video for "Kool Thing", from the album Goo.

Discography[link]

With Public Enemy[link]

Chuck D[link]

Studio Albums

• 1996: Autobiography of Mistachuck

Compilation Albums

• 2010 (as Mistachuck): I Don't Rhyme for the Sake of Riddlin'

References[link]

External links[link]

Wikiquote has a collection of quotations related to: Chuck D

Wikimedia Commons has media related to: Chuck D

• Public Enemy's official website
• rapstation.com, Chuck D's official website
• Chuck D at the Internet Movie Database
• Entry on Chuck D at Rolling Stone's website
• Chuck D on Twitter
• How To Stomp the Blues and Funk the World: Chuck D/Public Enemy at Fine Print Magazine's website