The headlines
Carlsbad police stopped perceived minorities at a higher rate than Whites in 2022, report says
For Black drivers, a police officer’s first 45 words are a portent of what’s to come
California Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Releases Report on 2021 Police Stop Data
State police data show no racial profiling in recent study of traffic stops
Police chiefs oppose AB 742 to ban the use of K9
The narrative
There is a steady stream of headlines and reports perpetuating the narrative that law enforcement officers are systemically racist and therefore “target” minorities routinely and without purpose. This narrative comes from activists, organizations, multiple news sources, on social media and via mainstream media television outlets. The vilification of police officers is nothing new, but the racial bias impugnment has intensified over the recent years. All it takes is for the public to read these articles, watch a few bad viral videos and the narrative is set. Feeding this false perception helps the anti-police factions promulgate more restrictive laws which further limits officers’ ability to apprehend criminals and/or perform traffic enforcement functions. It simultaneously discourages candidates from entering the law enforcement profession as outlined in last month’s APB Between the Lines article entitled The unspoken truth behind the recruitment and retention crisis. The overarching goal of these groups promoting these allegations of racism is to prevent officers from stopping anyone at any time for any reason regardless of probable cause or justification.
Between the lines
The common thread from these reports, articles and news stories is the notion that the percentage of police-to-citizen contacts must mirror the racial demographic of the community. If they do not match, which is usually the case, the conclusion is that policing is racist. This is flawed methodology and completely inaccurate. There are multiple factors to consider when evaluating police interaction data sets. The location, the crime rate in that area, the type of situation being investigated, etc. all create confounds for research methodologies. Whenever one of these studies is posted, look at the source of funding and the people/groups tied to same. In my analysis, I have found the groups conducting the research are generally funded by and/or affiliated with the same people who are championing the social justice and anti-policing efforts. In other words, the hypothesis has already been validated in advance. This is a manipulation of data and an organized, orchestrated effort to influence public opinion against law enforcement. These results are also often cited as justification for legislative proposals that undermine law enforcement and favor criminals.
Optimistically, I am noticing some action towards debunking and invalidating these false narratives. California is a recent example of how such a debunking effort can have a positive outcome. As a result of a powerful and well-orchestrated public information campaign, California police and labor leaders were able to defeat (at least for this legislative cycle) a bill that would have severely restricted the use of canines for law enforcement. The bill, AB 742, was predicated upon the “systemic racism” narrative. The bill’s author, in conjunction with the ACLU, went so far as to state: “…the use of police canines as attack weapons perpetuate the continued dehumanization and abuse of people of color. First used by slave catchers, police canines were often used during the Civil Rights Movement to brutally disrupt peaceful protests. Even today in California, 65% of those seriously injured by police dogs in 2021 were people of color.” The bill was defeated in committee, no doubt as a result of the efforts of both labor and management.
Similarly, the California Peace Officers’ Research Association (PORAC) issued a rebuke of the findings from the Cal RIPA’s Annual Report which perpetuates the ‘racist officer’ narrative. PORAC’s findings challenged the research methodology and analysis factors that led to RIPA’s conclusions. In Pennsylvania, the State Police’s contact data was analyzed and evaluated by the National Policing Institute. They concluded that no bias existed in the 440,000 contacts evaluated. Their research methodologies were sound, accurate and encompassing. Unfortunately, such vindicating results are not widely publicized by the mainstream media because it does not fit the racist narrative.
Now what?
There are ways to combat this negativity, but it takes tremendous leadership and commitment. In some instances, law enforcement leaders are stepping up and voicing strong opposition to the onslaught of negativity and pushing back against the false allegations of racial profiling. In other cases, the agencies respond to allegations of racial bias in such a manner that the public could conclude the statistics validate the perception. The absolute worse thing a police leader can do, when faced with a baseless public allegation of this nature, is to intimate that the results may be correct without any further investigation or assessment. Statements like “we can do better” or “we will work harder to prevent this” are feckless, tacit admissions which only serve to feed the false narrative and fuel the negativity.
Leaders must work hard to provide support and avoid being conciliatory against baseless racism allegations. Now is the time to band together and defend the honor and integrity of the profession. Set the record straight. Policing is not inherently racist. As the famous [paraphrased] quote says: “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good [people] to do nothing”. Stated another way: united we stand, divided we fall.
