New Jersey Offers a Lesson about Racial Profiling

I read this editorial, in which the author discussed the racial profiling that has existed in New Jersey. For years, African Americans and Latinos who reside in New Jersey have been aware that they are more likely to be pulled over by the police on a highway than a Caucasian individual. In 1998, the racial profiling was called to the attention of the state when state troopers fired 11 shots into a van carrying black and Latino men. New Jersey’s state police were placed under federal oversight. Now, a special advisory committee to Governor. Jon Corzine has concluded that the State Police have changed their ways and the governor has asked for an end to this kind of federal monitoring. I think that New Jersey’s experience is an important lesson for police departments across the United States. The committee that worked on the New Jersey case found conclusions that demonstrate that “vigilance and resources” in our system is responsible for racism in law enforcement. This conclusion was partly based on testimony gathered during 18 public hearings over the last year and a half. Since the incident, the State Police have improved training and revised their procedures. They have tightened the supervision of troopers video cameras have been installed in patrol cars that record highway stops. In my opinion, continued investment of time and resources will be needed to ensure that these reforms become a part of law enforcement around the United States. Proper protocol for traffic stops should be highly valued.

Republican Debate Sponsored by Univision

Last Sunday, the Republican candidates were involved in a debate held at the University of Miami, in front of a very pro-immigration audience. This was always going to be a difficult debate for these candidates because it is being broadcast on Univision. Their goal then had to be not to offend the Hispanic audience, but also not offend the Republicans whose support they have been trying to get by taking this hard line on this issue. For the most part, the seven candidates toned it down a little, even though they certainly talked about working to close the borders to illegal immigrants. Some spoke of trying to send some of the 12 million people who are thought to be here illegally back to their native countries. Their strategy seemed to be to sneakily weave comments about the value of immigrants and legal immigration into the debate amid the “send them home” talk. The debate comes less than a month before Iowa and New Hampshire cast the first ballots. The Republican presidential candidate drama is getting more intense due to the surge of support for Huckabee, the former governor of Arkansas. Candidates’ records were being attacked and they were forced to defend themselves. I believe that this debate is very indicative of what the candidates are willing to do to gain support. This debate in particular is really a great concept because the idea is that questions of Spanish-speaking viewers can have their questions translated to the candidates. But it is obvious that the candidates were trying to “tweak” their stance on this particular issue because they recognized the audience. This worries me. Language is already a barrier, but when it becomes a way for the candidates to alter their views I believe it becomes dangerous.

Oprah and Obama

It has become common for the famous to get involved in politics (remember that Dixie Chick who really did not like Bush). The most recent endorsement has been Oprah Winfrey's involvement in the Obama campaign. In fact, on Sunday, Oprah winfrey will appear in South Carolina in the Colonial Center with Barack Obama. The Colonial Center is the biggest arena in the state, seating 18,000 people. As of now, all the seats are filled and the lines were so busy that they had to shut down ticket distribution and start a waiting list. This demand for tickets must be a good sign for the Obama campaign. We must realize that here we have Oprah, surely a well-known individual, really impacting the political future of this country. She is using her name to bring new volunteers to Obama's campaign. Her mere presence is exciting thousands of voters and thus giving them the opportunity to learn about this candidate and what he represents. On the ticket for the event, the bottom reads, "With your signature, you pledge to vote for Mr. Obama in the South Carolina primary". This is surely no random "star-citing" anymore; this is an event that is being taken very seriously. Is this a positive aspect of this year's campaign? Is it wise to give so much power to the famous, to allow them to be a reason why the average American citizen is voting for a particular candidate? Whether or not you think so, it is certainly an issue at present and I think it will play a key role in the 2008 election.