Okay, I’ve been reading up on the news of the week. One story of interest is this controversy about the Administration demoting the head of BJS, partly over a disputed press release on racial profiling (see

here or here).

At the heart of the controversy is the allegation that the White House tried to downplay the news that while black and Hispanics get stopped by cops as much as whites (hence, showing a supposed decline in profiling), they get their cars searched more and get arrested more than whites.

The controversy is all about the supposed censorial spirit of the Bush administration trying to cover up an insidious form of racial profiling. But what I’d like to know is whether the searches were justified or the arrests meaningful. If the arrests stemmed from negative reactions from the minorities in question that would possibly be an indication that the individuals in question felt unfairly profiled. But if the searches/arrests were fruitful in the sense that they produced drugs etc, then this wouldn’t necessarily be evidence of racism so much as good policework. In other words, this data might suggest that conservative arguments about racial profiling are correct. Jiggering the numbers so that police stops “look like America” can’t conceal the fact that minorities are going to disproportionately be involved in crimes. So racially proportionate stops of whites and minorities will yield disproportionate arrests of minorities.

Of course, no one can know what was in the cars of the whites who were stopped but not searched, but you’d think in all the coverage there’d be some discussion about whether the searches and arrests were warranted.