Profiling: Is it unconstitional or legally promissable?
...s name is meant to be a shot at he already known DWI (Driving While Intoxicated). In today’s society the perception is that most drug traffickers are minorities. This is very untrue. Racial profiling is based on the premise that most drug offenses are committed by minorities. Our country can no longer remain the leader of the world in freedom and democracy when its people are identified as criminals simply because of there skin color.. We cannot afford to ignore this issue any further we must take action to ensure that this country is truly a free one. . Let’s make up a hypothetical situation. You are sending in your first college application to Harvard. There is only one spot left open between you and someone who is black. You have slightly better grades, both of you excelled in sports, you have more volunteer hours, and completed 2 foreign languages where he only has one. Applying affirmative action, you would not get the last position because of the need for ethnic diversity in the college atmosphere. Is that fair??? Is that right?? You clearly had a better dossier then him!! If affirmative action is supposed to support the individual, why is it solely based on race and why doesn’t it apply to every situation based on the potential of the individual involved? What happens if in this hypothetical situation that I just told you about, you had lived in a shack your whole life, had to work six jobs, support your mom’s crack addiction, and 4 feed other children in the house? When the black guy has been a millionaire his whole life and it has always been easy for him. By singling out the fact that only minorities are the ones that are at a disadvantage you are racially profiling them. Usually racial profiling is used in a negative sense, and I still am using the term in this fashion. By singling out minorities as the only people that affirmative action applies to, you are discriminating against them from the start. In effect, the policy intended to benefit minorities makes it obvious that they are at a clear-cut disadvantage; the policy not only permits but also encourages others to think less of them, regardless of anything other than the fact that they know they are of a different race. In a famous speech, President Lyndon Johnson used the following analogy: he compared affirmative action to that of two people competing in a race. One man trains hard for six months, while the other is in heavy shackles and can’t train at all. Who do you think is going to win when it’s race time? Well when thinking about affirmative action, doesn’t it seem fair that we help the guy who is in shackles? Of course it does, but it is the way that we help the guy in shackles that is wrong. Instead of releasing the shackles on this man, affirmative action would just be placing...