Some of the big names in the discussion of civil liberties, both on and off-campus, met for a panel discussion last Thursday.
The message driven home by the three panelists was this: Racial profiling is unfair and unconstitutional. "Racial profiling is bad work," said Mary Jo Harris, an attorney for Boston Police. "It's a nonproductive way to enforce criminal law and it's ineffective."
"Racial profiling is a failed technique," agreed Carol Rose, executive director of the ACLU of Massachusetts.
Although Sundeep Sahni, CSOM '05, managed to poke fun at the heinous practice of racial profiling - "Terrorists don't look like terrorists, that's like Rule No. 1," he said - it is in fact a very serious issue.
"We need to realize that thousands and tens of thousands of people around the world have experienced similar things," said Daniel Kanstroom, a BC Law professor.
Valid points were made by all three panelists. A fine line exists between protecting the homeland and letting all citizens and residents of this country enjoy their civil liberties.
"Which rights are given up?" asked Rose, "Who decides? And who safeguards against abuse?"
"When we give up our civil liberties, we somehow become safer," she said, mocking the government's stance on the issue.
When the question/answer segment of the forum was opened up, one courageous student, Nick Gardino, A&S '05, got up in front of the crowd to ask the first question. He asked for clarification on the passport technicality, reported in The Heights article on Aug. 3, and he inquired about the legal basis for declaring the act of photographing buildings grounds for "probable cause."
Gardino was not accusing. He was not justifying. He was simply asking and I applaud him for doing so. There is no such thing as a stupid question and there's nothing more important than getting your facts straight.
The vast majority of the audience that night in Devlin 008 should be utterly embarrassed by their reaction. They laughed at Gardino. They made rude comments. Among those I heard were, "Shut up," "What an idiot," "Stop talking," and "Who does this guy think he is?"
To treat Nick with such disrespect goes head to head with what is a so-called forum, an inclusive and public discussion, should aim to achieve. Though Gardino was not passing judgment, his peers passed judgment on him. Through his questions, the audience inferred and assumed a politically driven opinion and they clearly displayed that opinions differing from their own were very unwelcome. Even the panel members themselves chuckled at Gardino.
The only person in the entire room who treated Gardino with respect is one who himself endured the ridicule of others. That person is Sundeep Sahni. After the panelists gave derisive answers to Gardino's questions, Sahni rose and offered an explanation of the story behind the passport problem that prolonged his detention by the Secret Service.
Sahni said at the start of the forum that the good that came out of this deplorable situation is that BC students are now more aware of racial profiling and its effects. The forum Thursday night is one manifestation of this increased concern.
The good that came out of the forum is that the BC community saw the work of a role model. Despite the disrespect shown to him and the humiliation he endured, Sahni stood up and respected Gardino. We should all be proud to have Sahni as part of our community.
That's why it's so important that we fight for Sahni and see to it that the Secret Service apologizes to him. As Rose put it, "apologies don't alleviate human suffering," but they are a start.
Be the first to comment on this article!