National security threat perception can abruptly reverse public rejection of racial profiling

Evidence

This ambivalence between embracing and distancing, between paternalistic rule and the segregative security state, is mirrored by the ambivalence towards racial profiling. Prior to 9/11, racial profiling in the US especially by the police was being rolled back in the face of widespread public consensus that it was unworkable and unjust. Post-9/11, public opinion has swung dramatically, 70 percent now supporting profiling as a means to effect security in the homeland. One-third of people polled in the US responded that all Arab Americans ought to be interned as a bulwark against potential terrorism. In December 2004, a Cornell University study found 44 percent of Americans polled support curtailing of Muslim and Arab-Americans’ civil rights. — David Theo Goldberg, The Threat of Race, 462

Categorization

  • XREF: Direct evidence for the threatened-privilege generalization test: here the privileged ā€˜in-group’ is non-Arab Americans mobilized by security threat, not just race — an axis comparison the reader is pursuing. — connects to: Race-neutral rhetoric coexists with licensed racial profiling for security and policing; Security practices racialize suspect groups without anyone involved believing they are racist; Anti-terror fear normalizes demographic-focused security searching — Sherene Razack, Casting Out: The Eviction of Muslims…, 88 (+1 more)
  • QUESTION: Numbers cited (70%, one-third, 44%) are from polls the text does not fully name or date; worth chasing primary sources given reader’s need for falsifiable data.
  • SEED: A historical before/after comparison — pre-9/11 consensus against profiling vs post-9/11 reversal — supports an essay on how sudden threat perception overrides standing anti-discrimination norms.

Broader Connections