Racial Profiling Myth Debunked

[Maetryx]

City Journal.

I'm happy that Heather MacDonald updated this story today. I read her original article several months ago. The report released today by the New Jersey State Attorney General's office confirms her article.

 

[ShotgunSteven]

Who first brought up the so-called "issue" of racial profiling in New Jersey anyway? Was it Civil Rights leaders, or who?

 

[Jzero]

<< Who first brought up the so-called "issue" of racial profiling in New Jersey anyway? Was it Civil Rights leaders, or who? >>



Well, it depends on whether or not you consider Al Sharpton a civil rights leader.

 

[Lucky]

according to usatoday the department of justice asked that this report be withheld because of reportedly faulty methods.

 

[b0mbrman]

My favorite quote:


<< ?Everybody was terrified. Good statisticians were throwing up their hands and saying, ?This is one battle you?ll never win. I don?t want to be called a racist.?? Even to suggest studying the driving behavior of different racial groups was to demonstrate one?s bigotry, as Zingraff himself discovered when he proposed such research in North Carolina and promptly came under attack. Such investigations violate the reigning fiction in anti-racial profiling rhetoric: that all groups commit crime and other infractions at equal rates. It follows from this central fiction that any differences in the rate at which the police interact with certain citizens result only from police bias, not from differences in citizen behavior. >>

 

[Jimbo]

I swear, does the Federal Government have a special department that fudges statistical studies? This sounds like the nonsense pulled by the EPA in 1993 with the first second hand smoke study. Let?s review the steps.
Announce your conclusion before the study analysis begins.
Take a bunch of studies, and throw out the ones you don?t like; about half.
Finish your study but don?t release the data right away
Use time to fix math errors by modifying confidence levels, relative risk, and adjusting established procedure and scientific norms to validate the agency's previous conclusion
Change methodology to find a statistically significant association when all else fails
When taken to court, scream, ?It is for the children.?
When body slammed by a Federal Judge for committing a fraud, claim judicial bias

EPA Story

 

[Maetryx]

<< I swear, does the Federal Government have a special department that fudges statistical studies? >>



Former Governor of New Jersey, Christine Todd is the "official" that admitted to racial profiling by the State Troopers. She based this sweeping admission on WAY WAY WAY fauly data, that would have earned an "F" in a statistics class. She ordered the Attorney General's office of New Jersey to make a study of the situation.

Fast forward to today. That report that came out today has been complete since January. The Federal Justice Department has been trying to block it's release for months. It was finally released to the web, and then officially by the AG of New Jersey.

The Federal Government did not fudge the statistics. They didn't even write the report. They were trying to suppress it. They scrutinized this report 100 times more than former Governor Christine Todd did the original data which led to her admission of guilt on behalf of the State Troopers. The Justice Department *NEVER* criticized the faulty original data which led to "evidence" of racial profiling. They are upset at this rigorous report, statistically sound, designed by a reputable organization which shows that blacks disproportionately commit the crimes for which they are then proportionately targeted by the New Jersey Troopers.

 

[IGBT]

Racial Profiling has been institutionalized for years under the guise of AFFIRMATIVE ACTION. And so-called civil rights leaders are the lead profilers.

 

[etech]

Lucky

Did you even read the linked article? The alleged flaws were discussed and dismissed.

 

[Double Trouble]

Sickening, that the truth has to be sacrificed for political correctness nowadays. They tried their darndest to suppress a properly done study simply because the results didn't fit their pre-set ideas of what they should be. :|

This happens around the country, anyone that does any kind of study that has results that are not in agreement with political correctness will be hounded and blasted in every possible way -- even if they've done nothing wrong.

I'm glad this report came out, perhaps now we can start taking a harder look at some of the preconceived notions that are not based on any kind of evidence, or are based on pseudo-science (like the EPA likes to use).

 

[Lucky]

<< Lucky

Did you even read the linked article? The alleged flaws were discussed and dismissed. >>




I know. Wasnt claiming otherwise, just reporting that the morning's paper had a blurb on it.

 

[BlueApple]

From the Washington Post today...



<< The Justice Department questioned the methods used to gather the data for the study, released Tuesday by the state attorney general's office.

Specially designed radar gun cameras were used last spring to photograph tens of thousands of drivers on the New Jersey Turnpike. The photos were shown to teams of three evaluators who tried to determine each driver's race without knowing whether they were speeding. >>

 

[Muadib]

Sickening, that the truth has to be sacrificed for political correctness nowadays. They tried their darndest to suppress a properly done study simply because the results didn't fit their pre-set ideas of what they should be.

That study was not properly done. It was nothing more than BS to say the least.

 

[Red Dawn]

<< That study was not properly done. It was nothing more than BS to say the least. >>

Well reports are what most of us have to base whether Racial Profiling is a problem or not. Without reports 99.9% of us (especially those of us who wouldn't be targeted by Racial Profiling) wouldn't have a clue about it.

 

[Lucky]

The elegant study, designed by the Public Service Research Institute in Maryland, had taken photos with high-speed camera equipment and a radar gun of nearly 40,000 drivers on the turnpike. The researchers then showed the photos to a team of three evaluators, who identified the race of the driver. The evaluators had no idea if the drivers in the photos had been speeding. The photos were then correlated with speeds.

The driver identifications are not reliable! whined the Justice Department. The researchers had established a driver?s race by agreement among two of the three evaluators. So in response to DOJ?s complaint, the researchers reran their analysis, using only photos about which the evaluators had reached unanimous agreement. The speeding ratios came out identically to before.

The data are incomplete! shouted the Justice Department next. About one third of the photos had been unreadable, because of windshield glare that interfered with the camera, or the driver?s position. Aha! said the federal attorneys. Those unused photos would change your results! But that is a strained argument. The only way that the 12,000 or so unreadable photos would change the study?s results would be if windshield glare or a seating position that obstructed the camera disproportionately affected one racial group. Clearly, they do not.

 

[Muadib]

True Red, my only problem with the report is how it was done. Basically they stood on an over pass and took pictures of passing vehicles, and them tried to match the race of the driver. From what I've been reading, most of the pics are very poor.

 

[Maetryx]

<< That study was not properly done. It was nothing more than BS to say the least. >>



What did they do wrong? Your statement has about as much basis as former Gov. Todd's admission of racial profiling.

 

[PlatinumGold]

the glare issue, the subjective way in which race was determined.

oh wait a minute. that's what the police officers who make these decisions face every day. hmmm. mb the survey was accurate.

how else are police officers going to profile racially if not by making subjective judgements on what they saw thru glaring windshields.

 

[Lucky]

<< True Red, my only problem with the report is how it was done. Basically they stood on an over pass and took pictures of passing vehicles, and them tried to match the race of the driver. From what I've been reading, most of the pics are very poor. >>




Read above. In the final report they even had all three picture judges agree unimamously before including it. More than 12,000 were thrown out as unreadable. Clearly no one race over another would be disproportionately affected by this. And the judges were blind of the speeds of the driver when deciding race.

 

[Red Dawn]

<< True Red, my only problem with the report is how it was done. Basically they stood on an over pass and took pictures of passing vehicles, and them tried to match the race of the driver. From what I've been reading, most of the pics are very poor. >>

Actually what I should have said is that we actually have no way of knowing whether this report is BS or not. For the most part we judge the validity of it based on our own personal views regarding this subject.

 

[PlatinumGold]

Oh damn, this just occurred to me. i live in new jersey and i had noticed that black drivers were disporportionately bad drivers. now, if i say so, i'm not being a racist but just stating an observation right?

i'm serious, the majority of the time i'm cut off, or someone does something really stupid in front of me, it's been a black driver. now i have evidence to prove my case.

whew, i'm not a racist after all.

 

[swayinOtis]

<<

That study was not properly done. It was nothing more than BS to say the least. >>



It may or may not be BS, but to many of us the real BS is the politicall correctness that wanted to keep the report from the very public who funded it.

Not only that, but when people make serious claims about racism they better be able to back it up, or deal with it when they can't back it up.

It's like the stories that go around the black community saying that black soldiers died in disproportionate numbers in Vietnam. The race baiters say that the government did it to the black male (because they are victims, always have been, always will be) on purpose. That has been totally debunked. The truth will set you free.

 

[swayinOtis]

<< True Red, my only problem with the report is how it was done. Basically they stood on an over pass and took pictures of passing vehicles, and them tried to match the race of the driver. From what I've been reading, most of the pics are very poor. >>



they used the same cameras that take a picture of your license plate when you are speeding. they will send you a ticket in the mail based on that picture. i guess if it can take a good enough picture of your license plate it might be good enough to identify your race.

 

[Maetryx]

<< the glare issue, the subjective way in which race was determined.
oh wait a minute. that's what the police officers who make these decisions face every day. hmmm. mb the survey was accurate.
how else are police officers going to profile racially if not by making subjective judgements on what they saw thru glaring windshields. >>



Dude, you are so cool. I had not thought of this excellent point. If police officers WERE utilizing racial profiling, their basis for pulling someone over would be their face viewed through the glass of a motor vehicle (two, actually). So the subjective opinion of the photo judges is a relevant criteria for such a report. It's highly analogous to the process for which the NJ Troopers are accused.

 

[PlatinumGold]

maetryx

at least someone appreciates me.

yes. i thought this highly subjective study accurately reflected what wouldve happened in the real world.