When former Palo Alto Police Chief Lynne Johnson claimed to have instructed officers to stop and question African American men on Oct. 30, she inadvertently set off the latest scandal in the long history of racial profiling. Although Johnson has since apologized and retired from the force, questions remain as to whether or not her original remarks were appropriate. Racial profiling is a hot button issue in many areas of society, but nowhere is it as constantly debated as it is in the context of the law. It is true that racism exists within the justice system, but not every mention of a suspect’s ethnicity is a display of bigotry. When applied in a reasonable, unprejudiced context, racial profiling is not a weapon of bigotry, but rather a tool to aid the justice system.

If one takes a moment to put things in perspective, one realizes that many supposed incidences of racial profiling within the legal system are not actually acts of racism at all. Law enforcement officers working on a criminal investigation often come across evidence that the perpetrator belongs to a particular ethnicity. Because this information can aid in identifying the suspect, it would be foolish to disregard it out of fear that searching a specific racial demographic might lead to accusations of racism. In addition, if the police only have a physical description to work on, they must follow that lead. If not, they are forced to seek blindly for a new one, or worse, abandon the investigation all together.

Statistics show that some crimes are committed more often by certain demographics. For example, according to the California Criminal Justice Statistics Center, 88.1 percent of people arrested for homicide in California in 2006 were men. When it comes to race, however, people often mistake crime statistics for prejudice. Pure data is incapable of targeting anyone; statistics can never replace actual evidence for a crime, so there is little to no possibility of crime data influencing the investigation process. Specific evidence for a crime, not general statistics, leads to arrests. In the case of the former Palo Alto police chief, her instructions to approach African-American men were in response to pressure from the community to solve 16 recent street robberies. The suspects in most of these robberies were African-American. She may have phrased her orders in a manner that appeared racist, but based on her history of working to eliminate racial profiling, it does not appear that her motives were based on personal prejudice in any way. It is unfair to make judgments based on statements taken out of context, especially when an individual’s record of conduct refutes those judgments.

It would be extremely naïve to say that all incidents of racial profiling are misunderstandings. There are still many incidents of racism in the legal system that lead to harm and distrust on both sides. However, both the legal system and the community must make changes if the problem of unfair profiling is to be eradicated. The police department can start by confronting the issue head-on and removing personnel who exhibit racist behavior.

At the same time, law enforcement officers must be more upfront with the public with regards to why they take action against specific people. If the public understands that the police have reasons behind their searches and arrests besides prejudice, there will be fewer misunderstandings in the future. In order for Palo Alto to be a safer community, there must be trust between those who enforce the law and those who follow it.