Center for Equal Opportunity

The nation’s only conservative think tank devoted to issues of race and ethnicity.


Last update10:19:15 AM

Back You are here: Home Other Issues

Other Issues

Overreach by Unions in Wisconsin

The Wisconsin recall election of Republican Gov. Scott Walker is not going quite like the unions and the Democratic Party expected. Back in 2011, many pundits thought that the governor had overreached when he took on public employee unions, restricting -- though not eliminating -- collective bargaining rights. But he did so because he inherited a state in dire financial shape with a deficit of $3.6 billion and public employee pensions and benefits that threatened to bankrupt the state.


Family Mysteries

Like many Americans, genealogy has been a keen interest of mine. I've had a good sense of where my family came from -- Spain on my father's side and the British Isles on my mother's. But what I knew was only part of the story. And this Sunday, May 20th, what I subsequently learned will be aired on the PBS series "Finding Your Roots."


Obama Fails on Human Rights

The Obama administration's record on human rights, never strong, just got a whole lot worse. This week's dramatic saga of Chinese dissident Chen Guangcheng's escape from house arrest in Shandong province to safety inside the U.S. Embassy to the embassy's role in handing him over to Chinese authorities is a disgraceful tale. Once again, the Obama administration has chosen to put human rights violations on the back burner, as it has nearly every time it has been asked for help, whether from Iranian protesters in 2009 or Syrian freedom fighters today.


Pepsi and Political Correctness

Last week, I noted that the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has issued new “Enforcement Guidance” designed to make it much riskier for employers to consider arrest and conviction records in hiring decisions, on the grounds that such considerations can have a “disparate impact” on the basis of race.  But later last week, with some help from the Center for Equal Opportunity, the House of Representatives passed by voice vote an appropriations amendment that will forbid the EEOC from using any of its funds “to implement, administer, or enforce” this guidance. Kudos to Representative Ben Quayle (R., Ariz.), who introduced the amendment, which was sponsored by Representatives Steve Scalise (R., La.), Cliff Stearns (R., Fla.), and Rob Woodall (R., Ga.).


Romney Should Show He's a Leader, and Here's How

If Mitt Romney is to have any chance of beating President Barack Obama in November, he must win a larger share of the Hispanic vote than current polls suggest he will. And he won't unless he solves his immigration problem.

It's a problem of his own making. He decided that beating up on illegal immigrants would boost his popularity among those suspicious that he was really a moderate Republican. In doing so, he injected an issue into the campaign that had largely fizzled -- and for good reason. Illegal immigration is down to historical lows -- primarily because the U.S. economy continues to be sluggish, so fewer people want to come here.

Romney has plenty of advisers trying to figure out how best to soften his negative image among Hispanic voters. We can expect to see him wolfing down tacos and mumbling a few phrases in Spanish in the days ahead. But neither tactic will do anything but make him look foolish.

What he should do is rid his campaign of the likes of Kris Kobach -- the zealot behind several state anti-illegal immigrant laws being challenged in the courts right now. The Romney campaign already has started to back away from its association with Kobach, but that's just the first step. The next thing he needs to do is to speak honestly and openly to the American people about the true state of immigration to the U.S. -- legal and illegal.

Here's my suggestion for what he should say:
"My fellow Americans, I know I've spent a lot of time talking about illegal immigration during the primaries, and I've used some pretty tough rhetoric. I've suggested that 11 million people who are here illegally -- many of whom have lived in this country for decades -- should self-deport.

"But when I think about what those words really mean, I've come to understand that it would require parents to leave behind their American-born children or else force them to go to a country they've never known and whose language they may not even speak. It would separate husband from wife, brother from sister, and lead to family breakdown and instability in many communities.

"It also would shutter many local businesses, not just those that depend on immigrant labor but those where illegal immigrants buy their food, clothes, cars and washing machines. It would deepen the housing crisis as they left behind mortgages that never would be paid and abandoned rental units that would not be filled. Church pews would be emptier, as would federal, state and local tax coffers.

"It's true that there would be fewer tax dollars expended on educating the children of illegal immigrants or treating them in local emergency rooms. But every careful study that has factored in what illegal immigrants and their adult children ultimately pay in taxes over their life spans and what they take out in services shows a net positive, although a small one.

"So we need to figure out a humane and practical way to deal with this problem -- not one that makes a good sound bite but has no chance of success. I am committed, if I become president, to get the best minds available to come up with some alternatives. I know that most Americans don't like the idea of rewarding law-breakers, so whatever solution we come up with will have to carry heavy penalties for those who've broken the law.

"But we also have to realize that the only way to prevent this problem from recurring when the economy starts booming again -- as it will on my watch -- is to fix our legal immigration laws. Our legal immigration system is broken. The reason so many people have sneaked into the country illegally or remained here after their temporary visas expired is that there are no legal avenues for them to come.

"We need a legal immigration system that is market-based, not one created by a bunch of bureaucrats and anti-population lobbyists. We need to make sure American workers get first crack at jobs -- but when they won't take certain jobs or can't meet the qualifications for others, employers need legal access to workers who can and will. And we need whatever system we create to be flexible enough to accommodate the business cycle, with visas going up during boom times and down during recessions.

"What I promise, my fellow Americans, is to stop pandering to ideologues and hatemongers and come up with a system that is good for America and Americans and reflects the principles and values that have made this country great."

If he had the courage to give such a speech, he'd do more than improve his standing with Hispanics. He'd show leadership befitting a president.

Loose Lips Endanger Lives

The U.S. dodged another terrorist bullet when a would-be "underwear bomber" turned out to be a double agent. The news became public this week after rumors had circulated in April that Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), a Yemini-based group that is now the chief terrorist threat against the U.S., had been planning a spectacular attack to coincide with the one-year anniversary of the American raid that killed Osama bin Laden last May 2.


CEO Testifies Before Congress on Racial Profiling

Testimony of Roger Clegg, President and General Counsel,  Center for Equal Opportunity Before the Senate  Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Human Rights Regarding “Ending Racial Profiling in America" - April 17, 2012
226 Dirksen Senate Office Building


Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to testify this morning before the Subcommittee.

My name is Roger Clegg, and I am president and general counsel of the Center for Equal Opportunity, a nonprofit research and educational organization that is based in Falls Church, Virginia.  Our chairman is Linda Chavez, and our focus is on public policy issues that involve race and ethnicity, such as civil rights, bilingual education, and immigration and assimilation.  I should also note that I was a deputy in the U.S. Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division for four years, from 1987 to 1991.

In my testimony today, I want to make these points:  (1) care must be taken in defining the term “racial profiling”; (2) the amount of racial profiling that occurs is frequently exaggerated, and care must be taken in analyzing the data in this area;  (3) with those caveats, racial profiling as I will define it is a bad policy and I oppose it, with (4) a possible exception in some antiterrorism contexts; but (5) there are problems with trying to legislate in this area in general, and the End Racial Profiling Act in particular is problematic.

Defining “Racial Profiling”

Racial profiling occurs when race is used as a criterion in deciding whom to investigate, unless there is evidence that a particular crime was committed by someone of a particular race.

So, for example, it is not racial profiling if the police focus their efforts in high-crime areas, even if the residents of those areas are disproportionately one color or another.  It is not racial profiling if the police respond to citizen complaints, say, about drug sales in a neighborhood, even if those neighborhoods turn out, again, to be disproportionately one color or another. 

Also, it is not racial profiling if the victim of a mugging has described the assailant as someone who is six-feet tall, weighs 200 pounds, has a beard, was wearing a red windbreaker, and is a middle-aged white male – and so the police consider all those characteristics, including race, in questioning people.

Rather, a classic instance of racial profiling would occur if the police decided to pull over cars just exceeding the speed limit on I-95 if but only if they were late-model cars driven by a male driver with one or two passengers, and only if the driver was black, because the police thought that such cars were more likely to be involved in drug trafficking.

Note, by the way, that the fact that characteristics besides race are considered – whether the car was speeding, was relatively new, and had one or two passengers –  does not mean that racial profiling has not occurred.  So long as race is a factor, it is not necessary that it be the only factor.

In this regard, let me note that the Center for Equal Opportunity’s position is consistent when race is considered in university admissions.  The fact that race is not the only factor considered does not mean that discrimination has not occurred, so long as it is a factor.   I won’t belabor the point today, but it is remarkable that frequently the same organizations and the same people who are outraged about racial profiling when it is done by the police are perfectly happy with it when it is done by university admission officials.

How Frequently Does Racial Profiling Occur?

Care must be taken in analyzing data in order to determine if racial profiling has occurred.  There can obviously be a problem here if racial profiling is not defined rigorously in the first place, as I have already discussed.  But there can be problems even if it is.

For example, suppose that 80 percent of the cars driven along a particular route that are stopped by the police are driven by men, but that only 50 percent of all the cars driven along the route are driven by men.  Is this evidence that men are being singled out by the police for stops?  Not if men are much more likely to exceed the speed limit than women are.  By the same token, if some members of some groups are more likely than members of some other groups to attract the attention of the police for nonracial reasons (like speeding), the fact that there are racial disproportions in police stops may not be persuasive evidence – let alone proof – that discrimination has occurred.  And, of course, if some groups in the aggregate commit crimes at statistically higher rates than other groups, then we would of course expect racial disproportions in investigations, arrests, and convictions, too.  Again, if most street crime is committed by men, then of course a disproportionate number of investigations, arrests, and convictions will involve men.  And it cannot be seriously argued that all racial and ethnic groups at all times will commit all types of crimes at the same rates.

I am not going to argue that racial profiling never occurs.  With all the law-enforcement officials in this country, it would be astonishing if some of them – and of all colors, by the way – did not sometimes consider race or ethnicity consciously or unconsciously in deciding whom to investigate.

But I will say that the amount of racial profiling that takes place has frequently been exaggerated.  In this regard, I would refer the committee in particular to the work of Heather Mac Donald of the Manhattan Institute in this area.

Racial Profiling Is Bad Policy in Traditional Law-Enforcement Contexts

To the extent that racial profiling does occur in traditional law-enforcement contexts, however, it is a bad policy and I oppose it.

Some would arguethat racial profiling is perfectly rational and ought therefore to be unobjectionable.  The argument is that a disproportionate amount of street crime is committed by people who are young, and male, and black, and if you are all three then it makes perfect sense for the police to keep an especially keen eye on you, and pull you over more often, question you more carefully, and press you more aggressively to allow a search of your car. That is, it makes perfect sense if all the police are trying to do is maximize in the short term the number of their successful searches and arrests.
But that is not the police's overarching mission. They have to think of the long-term, too, and successful policing requires the cooperation of the rest of the community. If racially biased policing is an established policy, then that cooperation will be jeopardized.

Moreover, the order which the police are charged with maintaining includes not just the prevention of crime but the racially unbiased treatment of law-abiding citizens.  It is simply un-American for the government to be treating some Americans differently from other Americans because of skin color or what country their ancestors came from.

I’ve already drawn an analogy between racial profiling by the police and racial profiling by university admission officials.  Here's another analogy:  Suppose that a city agency is interested in hiring only people with a high-school diploma, and in that city the overwhelming majority of whites have a diploma and the overwhelming majority of Hispanics don't. Rather than have to go to the trouble of checking out the records of each applicant, it may be much more cost-efficient simply to hire all whites and no Hispanics. But most of us would insist that each applicant be assessed individually. (Clearly, that is what the law requires.)  Cost-efficient hiring is important to the city, but not so important as to justify racial discrimination.
In sum, I think that racial profiling is inconsistent with the principle of E pluribus unum – that we are all Americans and none of us ought to be treated differently on the basis of skin color or national origin. 

The Possible Exception in the Terrorism Context

On the other hand, if in a particular case racial profiling might save the lives of thousands of people, it should be permitted.  If, for example, considering someone’s national origin would make it more likely that law-enforcement officials could thwart a terrorist plot to detonate a bomb in a U.S. city, I would not oppose it.

But, having said that, let me note that I am not sure if this is generally the case in the war on terror, and I am also not sure that it would necessarily be racial profiling.

Let me explain the second point first.  Earlier I made the point that, if you are mugged by a six-foot, 200-pound, middle-aged white male wearing a red windbreaker, it is not "racial profiling" for the police to be on the lookout for people who meet that description, even though one element in it is racial. The classic case of racial profiling is, instead, when the police decide to stop cars being driven by young black males, not because they have the description of a specific suspect, but because they know that statistically drugs are more likely to be smuggled by young black males than, say, old Asian females.

But there are other circumstances that fall in between these two extremes. Suppose, for instance, that you are looking for members of a particular, Berlin-based drug cartel, who are engaged in particular acts of smuggling, and you know that they will all be German nationals, but you don't have specific names or descriptions that go beyond that. Is it "racial profiling" for the police to give shorter shrift in their investigation to people who are less likely to be Germans – to, say, Asians and African Americans?

Enough hypotheticals. Suppose that you have already identified several members of a terrorist ring and want to find the rest. The ones you have identified so far meet a particular profile: Middle Eastern ties. Muslim. Several are trained pilots. Male.Young or middle-aged.Booked on transcontinental flights.  What’s more, the ring is avowedly Islamist and anti-Israeli. Any problem with assuming that there is a good chance that the remaining members of the ring are likely to meet this profile, too?

This is a lot closer to the “specific description” extreme of the spectrum than the “statistically speaking” end of the spectrum. Which means that this really isn't properly characterized as racial profiling at all. This doesn't mean you ignore everyone who doesn't meet the profile or shoot to kill anyone with black hair. But you look harder at those who fit the description.

And the other response is, so what if it is racial profiling? No one believes that the government should never, under any circumstances, consider race in its actions.

Suppose, for example, that on 9/11 the FBI had received information that a terrorist on a jetliner that had been grounded had, as an alternative plan, loaded a private plane with explosives that he now intended to crash into a skyscraper.  As the FBI frantically looked over the passenger lists of the grounded planes – with limited time and resources – would anyone argue that it ought to be forbidden from focusing first on those individuals with Arabic names? More broadly, it is hard for me to believe that, if we are fighting an enemy with a particular religious/geopolitical agenda, that it won’t make sense to be on the lookout for people who share those religious/geopolitical ties.  [See also ]

As the Supreme Court has said, the Constitution is not a suicide pact.Kennedy v. Mendoze-Martinez, 372 U.S. 144 (1963); Haig v. Agee, 453 U.S. 280 (1981).  And thus one would not expect it to bar the government from doing what is necessary to defend the ordered liberty of our society.  Racial classifications are allowed if they are "narrowly tailored" to a "compelling governmental interest," according to the Supreme Court's case law. If stopping terrorism is not a compelling interest, then nothing is.

Note that the distinctions I am drawing here are reflected in the U.S. Justice Department’s “Guidance Regarding the Use of Race by Federal Law Enforcement Agencies”

Let me stress, however, that even if ethnicity is used in this context, it ought to be used as sparingly as possible, for two reasons.  First, it can be lazy and inefficient to use ethnicity as a proxy for behavior, as Professor Nelson Lund as argued in opposing my defense of the Justice Department’s guidance.

This problem is exacerbated by the fact that terrorists can always recruit members of nonprofiled groups.  And, second, the high costs of profiling that I discussed before – the abridgment of the principle of E pluribus unum and the risk of alienating the law-abiding people whose cooperation is essential in the war on terror – remain.  If racial profiling can be avoided, if there are better ways to identify potential terrorists, then that is the better course.

If it’s an easy and more fool-proof procedure to send everyone through the metal detector rather than to pick and choose whom to send through, then send everyone through.  That’s a small price to pay to avoid government use of racial classifications.  Conversely, if closer searches are required for some and ethnicity is one element in that decision, then that is a small price to be paid to minimize the risk of getting blown up, and the people being searched should show some patience.  It’s their safety that is being ensured, too, after all.

Problems with Legislating in This Area

While I am no fan of racial profiling, I am skeptical about whether it makes sense for a legislature to try to codify appropriate behavior in this area.  As I hope my testimony so far has shown, there are a lot of nuances here that are difficult to write into a one-size-fits-all law that is supposed to apply permanently to all law-enforcement agencies at every level of all governments. For example, it would be hard to articulate where the line is to be drawn between ordinary criminal activity and the extraordinary threats posed by extremist groups, and there is also a gray area in situations where not every individual in a criminal enterprise has been racially identified but the enterprise itself nonetheless has a racial (or ethnic or religious) identity of sorts.  I’m also skeptical about the courts playing an efficacious role in this area (the End Racial Profiling Act is designed to encourage litigation, by providing for attorney and expert fees and making it easy to make out a prima facie case).

This is not to say that this is a matter where there is no role for anyone except the police themselves.  I think that oversight hearings – with accompanying political and community pressure – can make sense if done responsibly, as well as of course self-policing and, in extreme cases, investigations by the U.S. Department of Justice’s civil rights division. 

I hasten to add that all of this ought to be done with a lot of sympathy and support for the tough and dangerous job that the police have to do, and with recognition of the fact that racial disparities do not equal racial discrimination.  If the police are hamstrung, those who will be hurt the most will be law-abiding people in high-crime areas – people who are themselves likely to be poor andAfrican American.

And, finally, while I am no fan of racial profiling, I am also no fan of the “disparate impact” approach to civil-rights enforcement and therefore no fan of this part of the End Racial Profiling Act in particular.

It is critically important that legitimate, nondiscriminatory police strategies that nonetheless have a disproportionate impact on one group or another not be discouraged. Alas, this bill does that in two ways. First, it mandates data collection by beat cops, which would inevitably pressure them to stop (or not stop) people in such a way that they “get their numbers right.”

Second, it explicitly declares that “a disparate impact on racial, ethnic, or religious minorities shall constitute prima facie evidence of a violation of this title.” Note also that this provision, ironically, makes the bill itself of dubious constitutionality, since it explicitly accepts law-enforcement activities that have a disparate impact on some racial, ethnic, and religious groups, but not those that have a disparate impact on others.  The End Racial Profiling Act, in other words, literally denies the equal protection of the laws and uses racial profiling.


Thank you again for the opportunity to testify today.  I would be happy to try to answer any questions that the committee might have.


Here are links and cites to some of what I’ve written in this area: (Federalist Society paper)  (“Profiling vs. profiling vs. profiling”) (“No to profiling”) (“Fingerprints and profiles”) (“Profiling terrorists”) (“Two bad bills”) (“Perfect profile”) (“E pluribus unum”)

“Race and Crime,” Legal Times, July 17, 2000, at 62.

“Profiling by Any Other Name,” Legal Times, June 28, 1999, at 15.

“Conservatives against racial profiling,” Washington Times

Proof of Color, Please?

Our friend Jennifer Gratz—of Gratz v. Bollinger, the Supreme Court case that struck down racially preferential undergrad admissions at the University of Michigan in 2003—passed along to usthis interesting news story from Detroit.  It’s about one Jerome Morgan, who is being asked by the city to prove he is black and, therefore, truly eligible for a contract preference that allegedly the mayor would rather give to someone else for political reasons.


Feminists Limit Women's Choices

Not since Hillary Clinton's infamous remark during the 1992 presidential campaign -- "I suppose I could have stayed home and baked cookies and had teas" -- has a prominent Democratic woman so insulted full-time homemakers. Speaking on CNN Wednesday, Democratic strategist Hilary Rosen said that Ann Romney has "never worked a day in her life" and, therefore, can't understand the struggles of most women.

Rather than apologize for sticking her thumb in the eyes of millions of American homemakers, Rosen doubled down when critics responded. "This isn't about whether Ann Romney or I or other women of some means can afford to make a choice to stay home and raise kids," she said. Talk about a "war on women"; this sounds like a war on work-at-home moms. In Rosen's view, they're either lazy or privileged.       

Nothing about Rosen's comments surprises me. I know her slightly -- we are both frequent panelists on PBS' all-female public affairs program, "To the Contrary" -- and she's a perfectly nice woman. But she's also a hard-core feminist -- and that's the problem.

Feminism as ideology eschews individual choice. Women must fit a certain mold; if they don't, they're either deemed in need of having their consciousness raised or dismissed as frivolous ninnies.

Ann Romney, who raised fives sons, has defended herself against Rosen's accusation by saying Rosen should have come to her "house when those five boys were causing so much trouble. It wasn't so easy." Frankly, Romney would be better off not dignifying Rosen's attack by responding.

Anyone who has spent a day caring for a toddler -- much less trying to handle five boys at one time -- knows that motherhood is hard, full-time work. The fact that many mothers choose to work outside the home, as I did, does not mean that those who choose to stay at home are taking the easy way out.

Nor is it true, as Rosen and other feminists assert, that most mothers "have to work." Certainly, most single mothers must work to support themselves and their children, which is why their labor force participation rates are higher than those of married mothers, 75 percent compared with 69 percent. But many married women work primarily because they want to. There's nothing wrong with that, so why pretend it is out of necessity.

When you factor in the actual costs of working outside the home, it might not make great economic sense for a mother of young children to work. Out of her wages, she must pay for child care, transportation, a work wardrobe and work lunches, plus the extra cost of convenience foods or eating out when she doesn't have time to prepare family meals, not to mention higher family taxes. Those expenses add up and, for some lower-income women, might outweigh the financial benefit of the extra paycheck.

Even if working outside the home is not born out of necessity or particularly remunerative, many women still would choose to do so because they find it personally rewarding. And our economy has benefited greatly by having so many more productive workers added to the labor force. Almost no one today argues that women shouldn't have the right to seek employment outside the home.

The same can't be said about attitudes toward women who choose to work at being mothers and homemakers. For the Hilary Rosens of the world, these women are fair game to be sneered at, insulted, demeaned and belittled. Their achievements raising children and being supportive wives, good housekeepers and community volunteers are dismissed.

Feminists believe that the only legitimate role models for young girls are women whose lives mirror their own. Feminists don't want to expand choices available to young women so much as they want to limit the options to feminist-approved categories, and full-time homemaker clearly isn't on the list.