Locks, security alarms, police officers and video cameras all have two things in common. First, these examples and many more are attempts to prevent damage, harm or loss to property or life. Second, all are measures implemented on a perceived threat of such damage, harm or loss to property or life. Homeowners lock their doors and install security alarms to prevent burglars from stealing from their houses. Increased frequency of crimes committed at night prompt more patrols by police when the sun goes down.

The reason I brought up these examples is because racial/gender profiling is very similar, except it deals with people. I get the impression that there is a double standard when it comes to profiling. Let me first point out that when all of us were in high school and got our licenses. If we were on the honor roll, the insurance our parents had to pay wasn’t as much as it is if we weren’t. Some might argue that better students are less likely to get into accidents than those who don’t do as well. Statistics might back up their claim and, to them, justify such profiling. OK, keep that in mind as I continue to my next example. Males between 18 and 25 pay higher car insurance rates than females in the same age range. Again, there is a perceived higher risk of accidents among males than females. Supporters again might quote statistics to justify the higher insurance rates. It seems that both of these examples are not viewed as being wrong or being discriminatory, which they should be.

Now I am going to move on to something is more controversial, but what else has anyone come to expect from me? Everyone still remembers the tragic events that unfolded Sept. 11. Some may remember the bombings at the World Trade Center in 1993. Even more vague in our memories is the Pan Am Flight 103 airplane bombing in 1988 over the Scottish town of Lockerbie. The first two were committed by men of Middle Eastern descent of Islamic faith. The latter was by a Libyan of Islamic faith. Before you start shaking your head in disgust let me make my point here. The world post-Sept. 11 is a vastly different place. I will take airline security in perspective for the purpose of my article. Tensions flared when it was suggested that men and perhaps women of Middle Eastern descent should be targeted more frequently for searches by security. Critics claimed this action was racist and unfairly subjected innocent people because of the color of their skin.

It seems strange to me that as a male I would be subject to higher insurance premiums as a result of my possession of characteristics commonly held by males of our species even though I had committed no prior acts to warrant such a slap in the face. The irony seems lost on many, and how this double standard continues to exist dumbfounds me. How come no one is claming gender discrimination here? The principle between these two examples is exactly the same: A risk is anticipated, so action, whether appropriate or not, is taken to try to neutralize it. However, one is deemed OK and one is racist! I hope this shocks you as much as it does me.

Such random implementation of profiling is discriminatory in itself. Solutions? Perhaps doing away with profiling altogether. As a result, I wouldn’t have to pay more for car insurance. I would be happy with that. Or we could apply such profiling equally among all groups that pose such a risk to society. That means more scrutiny of Middle Eastern men everywhere in addition to me paying more for car insurance. Whatever path our society takes on this issue in the future, I sincerely hope it is fair and applies equally to everyone. The system of double standards in place today, as I have outlined, is wrong and shouldn’t exist. If one group of any race, gender or faith is targeted for a perceived risk so should another for the same reasons. Uneven application leads to discriminatory practices. Think about it, perhaps you are being wrongfully discriminated.

Reach Jacob LaRow at  jakelarow@aol.com