No less than a year ago, if a shoe had come onto the market and been referred to as "the bomb," Nike executives would have claimed to have found the second coming of Air Jordans. But today the combination of shoes and the term "bomb" holds a radically different connotation. In an incident that makes airport security seem shakier than George Bush in a game of Trivial Pursuit, Rick Reed, the now infamous shoe bomber, managed to bypass airport security and come fairly close to setting off a bomb implanted in the sole of his sneaker. All of this was fortunately stopped by the inability of Mr. Reed to light the match, and, hence, the fuse, without attracting attention to himself. But the mess of this incident severely tightens the amount of time that airports can use to implement better and much needed security reforms. It also provides the justification for profiling starting right now.
As politically incorrect as profiling is, it is not only the best but also the most efficient way to tighten airport security. Many of the suggested reforms, including the addition of countless x-ray machines, cannot be finished or financed for an extended period of time. The scale of production of the companies in the United States that manufacture x-ray machines comes up drastically short of the required amount. Dog sniffers come at the relatively inexpensive cost of $140,000 per year, but they require breaks every 20 minutes. More thorough baggage checks are mandatory, but with these checks come unforeseeable time delays and the inevitable loss of air travel business. While I welcome a time delay for the presence of greater security, many people cannot afford, or are too impatient, to spend an extra hour or two in a crowded, uncomfortable airport terminal. In order to please the masses and heighten security we need to try to find a compromise -- and this compromise is profiling.
Let's say, for an example, that a new security reform was introduced throughout airport terminals that required passengers to take their shoes off, for inspection, before boarding an airline. There is no reason that my 84-year-old grandmother needs to remove her white J.C. Penney sneakers at the baggage check compartment. Not only would the process border on the ridiculous and probably take a good 10 minutes, but it would also be a waste of the airport's security and everyone else's time. Now perhaps this example is a bit far-fetched, but the point is that when conducting security checks we need to take several issues into consideration. We know the background and make-up of many of these terrorists. We have a fairly good understanding of the age bracket, sex and racial background of the guilty parties. Why should we ignore such vital information? This is hardly an excuse to introduce racism throughout our airports as a way to obtain retribution. It is merely using probability and experience to make sure that history does not repeat itself. It is using all of the information that we possess so that we can avoid further catastrophe. Such profiling should play out into longer and more strenuous requirements for customers that generate greater suspicion. The fact that these people are undoubtedly of Islamic decent does not connote racist security measures. It is simply the times that we have been thrust into.
While this reform is no stroke of genius, as Islamic fundamentalists have anticipated the use of racial profiling as a security measure, it is a start toward reforming air travel's most dangerous problem. Critics can use two major points to argue against profiling. One is that we may become ignorant to the possibility that those not fitting a certain profile pose a danger as well. This is understandable. One only needs to look at blue-eyed Timothy McVeigh to justify this criticism. But no system is 100 percent efficient. We must use probability and likelihood when considering how to destroy the problem. The second criticism is that profiling can often grow out of control and lead to physical violence and verbal abuse. But why should this pattern repeat itself? The use of such profiling is simply a means of achieving greater safety -- it is not an invitation for racism or the justification for inhumane treatment. We should have the ability to stop profiling at the terminal gateway. If we can accomplish this reform, air travel will become safer until further changes can be made, and maybe we can avoid the second coming of Air Jordans.
