'Stop and frisk': 7 questions about New York's controversial policing tactic

A federal judge has declared the New York Police Department’s 'stop and frisk' program to be unconstitutional, and new Mayor Bill de Blasio disavows it. Its use has abated under returned Police Commissioner William Bratton, but the fight over it continues. What is it, and does it work?

5. Is the practice racist?

Seth Wenig/AP/File
A protest against the New York Police Department's 'stop and frisk' program moves down Fifth Avenue in New York in June 2012.

Not surprisingly, it depends whom you ask.

“It’s almost like asking ‘is the Pope Catholic?’ ” says Robert Gangi, director of the Police Reform Organizing Project at the Urban Justice Center. “Of course it’s racist. Eighty percent of people stopped are black or brown.”

Mr. Gangi says the practice “targets everybody of a certain color, certain age cohort who live in certain communities, basically low-income black and brown young men.”

Black and Hispanic men between 14 and 24 make up 4.7 percent of the city’s population, but comprise 41.6 percent of all people stopped and frisked, evidence that the program is racially biased, according to Gangi.

Heather Mac Donald, a fellow at the Manhattan Institute and author of “Are Cops Racist,” says stops and arrests should be compared against crime data, not population data.

Blacks commit two-thirds of violent crimes in New York, 70 percent of robberies, and 80 percent of shootings, with blacks and Hispanics together committing 98 percent of shootings in New York, according to NYPD data, says Ms. Mac Donald. Those figures, she says, explain why stops are targeted toward those communities.

“Shootings produce police activity,” she says. “Shootings are bringing police to an area, not the race of the people who live there.”

As such, Mac Donald says, stop and frisk targets crime, not race. “The NYPD focuses resources on where citizens need them most, they happen to be minorities.”

5 of 7

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.