In response to the $28m suit brought by Arab-American men who claimed they were denied service on the basis of their race at a Denny's restaurant in Florida (see previous post on the issue), the CEO and president of Denny's has issued a statement that reads in part:

We take claims of discrimination very seriously at Denny's. We long ago adopted a Zero Tolerance approach to such incidents. If we find that any allegation of discrimination has merit, we take swift and forceful action....

In the case of the lawsuit brought against our franchisee in Florida, the allegations have been found to be baseless.

In accordance with our strict approach to claims of this type, we commissioned an immediate and thorough investigation by an independent, outside agency with experience investigating such allegations for the United States Department of Justice. That investigation found no evidence whatsoever to support these allegations. The facts proved no deterrent to plaintiffs who perceived an opportunity for financial gain.

As a result, we intend to aggressively challenge the accusations. We are confident when all of the facts are presented that Denny's will be vindicated.

The print version of The Washington Post has, at least several times that I've noticed, contained a special pull-out section featuring the names and faces of the U.S. soldiers who have died in Iraq. The Post has also devoted a part of it's web site to these soliders in a "Faces of the Fallen" feature.

Those lost in the war include a Sikh, Uday Singh, who served as an Army gunner. After Singh's death, the Post ran a great article on how Singh's death impacted the Sikh community. The article noted that on the one-year anniversary of Singh's passing, a group of Sikhs congregated at his headstone at Arlington National Cemetary, in part, "to remind the rest of the world that Sikhs are Americans."

A group of Georgetown University students protested "alleged incidents of discrimination at the restaurant and to demand equitable treatment for all customers."

According to Georgetown student Sumeet Singh Mitter, the manager of The Tombs restaurant in Georgetown "approached his brother [a Sikh who wears a long beard and a turban] and repeatedly asked him if there was a problem." Mitter "described the manager's attitude as unnecessarily hostile and attributed his actions to ethnic discrimination."

A full account of the protest and the alleged discrimination can be found here.

The San Jose Mercury News is reporting that East Palo Alto police officer Rami Khoury, an Arab-American, has not been paid in more than two weeks and he has allegedly encoutered discrimination from other police officers. In particular, Khoury and another officer claim "fellow officers refused to back them up on patrol after they went public with their complaints."

In a historic move that received little attention from the Western press, the U.N. Commission on Human Rights adopted resolutions on combating the defamation of religions and on the right to development. What makes this particularly significant is not only the substance of the resolutions, but also who voted against the resolutions. A description of the most relevant resolution is as follows:

In a resolution (E/CN.4/2005/L.12) on combating defamation of religions, adopted by a roll-call vote of 31 in favour to 16 against, with five abstentions, the Commission expressed deep concern at negative stereotyping of religions and manifestations of intolerance and discrimination in matters of religion or belief still in evidence in some regions of the world; strongly deplored physical attacks and assaults on businesses, cultural centres and places of worship of all religions as well as targeting of religious symbols; noted with deep concern the intensification of the campaign of defamation of religions, and the ethnic and religious profiling of Muslim minorities, in the aftermath of the tragic events of 11 September 2001; expressed deep concern that Islam was frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism; and further expressed deep concern at programmes and agendas pursued by extremist organizations and groups aimed at the defamation of religions, in particular when supported by Governments.

The tally of which countries voted for and against this particular resolution is:

In favour (31): Argentina, Bhutan, Brazil, Burkina Faso, China, Congo, Costa Rica, Cuba, Ecuador, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Guinea, Indonesia, Kenya, Malaysia, Mauritania, Mexico, Nepal, Nigeria, Pakistan, Paraguay, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Togo and Zimbabwe.

Against (16): Australia, Canada, Dominican Republic, Finland, France, Germany, Guatemala, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, Romania, Ukraine, United Kingdom and United States.

The resolutions may be located on the Commission's website.

Joel Mowbray offers a weak argument for racial profiling by implying that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has its hands tied because of applicable civil rights laws. In particular, Mowbray discusses a classified memo in which the DHS "laid out “priorities” for handling illegal aliens who’ve been apprehended within the United States." He notes:

Political correctness can be seen in the classified memo. It explicitly prohibits racial — or even national origin — profiling. A determination for holding an individual cannot be “based solely on the alien’s race, ethnicity, nationality or religion.” In other words, 19 Saudi Muslims are considered no greater security threat — or deemed more important for detainment — than 19 Mexican farm hands.

But don’t blame DHS. It’s the law. DHS couldn’t assess risk based on an illegal’s race or national origin even if it wanted to. For over two decades, immigration law has forbidden consideration of race or national origin.

As was explained to me by an FBI special agent with extensive experience in the field, just because the law says law enforcement officers cannot engage in racial profiling does not mean it doesn't take place in practice. In his words, a police officer who tells you that racial profiling doesn't occur -- even though it is against the law -- is not telling the truth. Similarly here, that the DHS operates under federal civil rights legislation that prohibits the consideration of race or national origin in ways that racial profiling requires does not mean that, in practice, DHS officials do not impliedly advocate it's use, turn the other cheek when it is used, or actually engage in it themselves. In short, the hands of DHS officials are tied on the record, but not necessarily in the field.

In any case, the experiences of many Arab, Muslim, South Asian, and Sikh individuals in the United States confirm the use of racial profiling anyway. (See e.g. here and here.) This is unfortunate not only for members of these communities, but also for the rest of the nation. That is, the actual use of racial profiling is ineffective and provides Americans with a false sense of security.

The common argument from proponents of racial profiling is that it is ridiculous for "a 70-year-old white woman from Vero Beach [to] receive the same level of scrutiny as a Muslim from Jersey City." The response, which I believe is quite right, comes from an email exchange that I had with a prominent federal judge. The judge wrote an article suggesting that "if bin Laden is smart, he'll attack Des Moines; it's unprotected." I emailed the judge, asking if this logic can be persuasively applied to racial profiling as a means of fighting the domestic arm of the war on terror? That is, 'if bin Laden is smart, he'll enlist an elderly white woman to carry out an attack.' His reply, was, of course, yes: racial profiling tells the terrorists whom to try to recruit.

Indeed, one need look no further than Zacarias Moussaoui, a French citizen of Moroccan descent, or Richard Reid, a British citizen, to understand that those aiming to harm the United States and its interests will employ people who defy our profiles in order to escape detection and carry out their destructive plot. Arguing that racial profiling should be used is thus an invitation to the enemy to recruit those who exist outside of our "perceived terrorist" profile.

Several major media news outlets, including CNN and ABC News, are reporting that seven Arab- American men filed suit alleging that the manager of a Denny's ordered them to leave with the explanation that, "We don't serve bin Ladens here." According to the complaint:

the men visited the restaurant early in the morning of January 11, 2004, and, after long delays, were seated, given menus and served drinks.

After waiting more than an hour for their food while later customers were served, they asked twice about their order. The lawsuit said Ascano told them "Bin Laden is in charge of the kitchen." Asked about the reference to the al Qaeda leader, he swore and told them, "We don't serve bin Ladens here" and ordered them to leave....

The $28 million lawsuit was filed in Miami-Dade County Circuit Court.

This morning's New York Times has a delightful article on New York taxi cab drivers who wait by Kennedy Airport for more lucrative fares to Manhattan and the opportunity to socialize with other cab drivers of the same ilk. For example, the article mentions Muslim cab drivers who will pray together, or Punjabi cab drivers who often play a certain game.

The Times should be commended for exploring the lives of these honest workers who have braved rising gas prices, slower business after 9/11, and often the insults of unruly passengers. It is important for New Yorkers to remember that the people who perform this thankless job are, at bottom, hard workers looking to make an honest living. The Kennedy Airport location, where some of New York's cab drivers congregrate, almost provides these workers with a sanctuary. Indeed, the article notes, "'When we come here, we feel human again,' said Eli Mizrachi, an Israeli-born driver."

In addition to the well-deserved profile of these drivers, the article is accompanied by a slideshow containing several interesting pictures.

The debate over the value of diversity in society and the problem that some citizens have in holding on to their nationalistic identiy while embracing immigrant populations can also be found in New Zealand of all places. The New Zealand Herald contains a powerful essay arguing for the social value of religious diversity and the problems with thinking of religious minorities or immigrants as a "them"-entity.

The author begins his piece by recounting an unfortunate incident at the opening of a new Sikh gurdwara: "[The opening] was temporarily marred by a passing motorist who shouted: 'Why don't you go back to where you came from?'"

In his defense of pluralism, the author notes: "To affirm a place for oneself is legitimate. To deny a place to others is not." In other words, to identify one's self with one's nation is perfectly acceptable, however to do this does not require the denial of the same nationalistic identity to others, particularly those who ultimately contribute to that society in many different ways. Moreover, even if one does not feel the need for patriotic self-identification, to deny another this same ability on the basis of their immigrant status or perceived difference is inappropriate.

The article is quite scholarly for a newspaper essay, and is definitely worth a read.

In discussing the rising threat of domestic terrorism, an article by the Inter Press Service quotes the following statistics:

The FBI, which is responsible for investigating hate crimes, reports that nearly 7,500 incidents were classified as hate crimes in the United States in 2003, the last year for which complete data is available.

The non-governmental Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), however, said that FBI and DOJ data are based on reports voluntarily submitted by local law enforcement authorities, who do not always track or report hate crime statistics. SPLC estimates that there are probably 50,000 more hate crimes than the FBI has tallied.

More than half the crimes were motivated by racial prejudice. Reported hate crimes included 14 murders but intimidation and vandalism were the most frequently cited problems. Six of the murders were among more than 1,200 incidents of hate based on sexual orientation.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) said it received reports of 1,019 anti-Muslim incidents during 2003, a nearly 70 percent increase from the previous year and the highest number of civil-rights complaints from those of the Islamic faith in the nine years the group has been tracking them.

CAIR, in a report, said hate crimes against Arabs, Muslims, Sikhs, and South Asian Americans perceived to be Muslims jumped 121 percent that same year.

It is impressive that the article examines both domestic terrorism and a consequence of increased fear of domestic terrorism: greater suspicion of and discrimination against those perceived to be terrorists. Generally an article, especially a relatively short one appearing on a news organization's web site, may address only one aspect, but not both.

Jurors hearing a case brought by Abdul Azimi concluded, after six days of testimony, that Azimi "was subject to illegal racial and religious harassment, but was not entitled to money damages from" his former employer. According to Azimi, the harassment included the following:

at various times over two years, he found a threatening letter in his locker, his boots in a toilet and his pockets stuffed with pork, which under Islamic dietary law he is forbidden to eat.

Azimi's attorney is looking into filing an appeal.

As has been reported by several blogs, a radio station in New Jersey broadcast racist and offensive commentary aimed at Asians and Indians. Below is a partial transcript of the material in question:

Caller: I had just moved out of Edison because of what has happened in the past 10 years… Orientals are all along, the whole complete route 27. And Indians have taken over Edison in north and all over.

Carton: Damn Orientals and Indians.

Caller: I..i moved out..36 years I’ve lived in Edison

Carton: And what was the biggest problem you had with the Orientals and the Indians ?

Caller: I can’t handle them! There’s no American people anymore.

Carton: Eh..Caller: There shoving us the hell out!

Carton: It’s like you’re a foreigner in your own country isn’t it?

Caller: You go to own store and you can’t even see American people, you don’t see our own kids, American kids, working in stores anymore…

Unfortunately, this this on-air incident is not the first that we have seen in recent memory; this discriminatory language follows a pattern of offensive talk-radio that deserves widespread condemnation from both minority communities and sensible listeners alike.

To any thinking that this incident or the "us v. them" debate generally isn't substantively important, read this insightful essay in the Guardian (UK). Immigration has become a controversial topic as the British election nears, and the author of this piece pinpoints why the issue resonates with voters desiring more restrictive immigration policies:

But I suspect that the reason that so many people cite immigration as a concern is not simply the uninformed suspicion that they are being cheated of homes or social security. The figures appear to suggest the opposite: that immigrants benefit the economy. What really frightens them is the fear that their country is being slowly stolen from them by people who do not have a stake in it.

The New York Sun is reporting that a U.S. District Court judge has approved the settlement of an employment discrimination claim against Abercrombie & Fitch. According to the article, the suit alleged that Abercrombie "avoided hiring minorities and women nationwide in order to preserve the 'all-American look' cultivated by the company in its catalogs and advertisements."

(Thanks to Septa Mutiny)

According to GG2.net, "a Sikh civil rights documentary is scheduled to be screened at the 28th Annual Asian American International Film Festival (AAIFF) at New York in July." The documetnary is entitled “Dastaar: Defending Sikh Identity.”

The article paraphrases a press release issued by the Sikh Coalition:

The documentary shows the struggle of the American-Sikh community to overcome hatred, fear and intolerance it faces from fellow Americans due to an essential symbol of the Sikh faith -- the “dastaar” (headgear).

Incidentally, Valarie Kaur, co-director of the Discrimination & National Security Initiative, is presently working on her own documentary film, entitled ““Divided We Fall: Americans in the Aftermath.”

To learn more about her film, please email Ms. Kaur at valariek@gmail.com.

Today's edition of The Washington Post has an excellent opinion piece written by Omar Khan on his unfortuate experiences with airport security screeners. Khan makes a compelling case for abandoning security mechanisms that rely exclusively on common first and last names. Khan notes:

I was warned to expect to spend two to three hours each time attempting to get back into the country of which I am a legal resident. This struck me as insane. How are we made safer by repeated security checks because of an indiscriminate emphasis on generic names?

The entire article is worth a read. Aside from the substance of the essay, it is significant that The Washington Post, a widely-circulated and well-respected publication, printed an article on a form of racial profiling as a means of making our airports -- and nation -- safer.

A local newspaper in Oregon is reporting that "part of a former California internment camp for Japanese Americans during World War II has been recommended for designation as a National Historical Landmark." A National Park System committee voted unanimously to recommend that the U.S. Interior Secretary Gail Norton approve the designation.

The full story is available here.

A startling study conducted by Cornell University's Media and Society Research Group (MSRG) reveals how willing respondents are to degrade the civil liberties of Muslim-Americans in the wake of post-9/11 terrorism concerns. A report on the study notes:

almost half of respondents polled nationally said they believe the U.S. government should -- in some way -- curtail civil liberties for Muslim Americans.

The survey found that about 27 percent of respondents said that all Muslim Americans should be required to register their location with the federal government, and 26 percent said they think that mosques should be closely monitored by U.S. law enforcement agencies.

Twenty-nine percent agreed that undercover law enforcement agents should infiltrate Muslim civic and volunteer organisations, in order to keep tabs on their activities and fund raising.

About 22 percent said the federal government should profile citizens as potential threats based on the fact that they are Muslim or have Middle Eastern heritage.

In all, about 44 percent said they believe that some curtailment of civil liberties is necessary for Muslim Americans.

More information on the findings can be obtained from a MSRG press release.

The Detroit Free Press is reporting on the upcoming opening of the first Arab-American museum in the nation, which contains " interactive displays, 600 artifacts, video displays and more." The lengthy article also notes that the museum has a room dedicated to explaining the effects of September, 11, 2001 on the Arab-American community: "On one wall is an enlarged copy of a letter that the U.S. government mailed to hundreds of Arab men in the fall of 2001 asking them to be interviewed as part of terrorism investigations."

The Greeley Tribune discusses the religious freedom of a Muslim student, who is permitted to pray in the institution's public spaces due to the First Amendment protections afforded to him. The article notes that the student, ironically perhaps, "likes the culture this First Amendment creates. In Saudi Arabia, law prohibits non-Muslims from openly practicing their religions."

"A Danish Court has imposed a fine of 3000 kroners on Ripudaman Singh, a student, of the Aahrus University, Denmark for wearing a ‘kirpan’." The complete story can be accessed here.

The student newspaper of Rutgers University contains an profile of the university's Sikh Club, which is trying to eradicate ignorance by eduacting other students about the faith.

The Indianapolis Star is featuring an article on the "Allah Made Me Funny" comedy tour, which seeks to "build bridges between people of different backgrounds and religions."

Penn notes how disrespectfully he was treated during his first audition in Los Angeles. He recounts the story in an article appearing on rediff.com:

"It was the first audition I went on in Los Angeles for a commercial. I walked into the audition and the casting director said 'Where's your turban?' I said, 'I don't wear a turban; I am not a Sikh.'

I started to explain the difference but she got very upset and said, 'Well, can you go home and put on a bed sheet or something?'

KXLY in Spokane, Washington is asking for tips in a vicious hit and run incident that left a Sikh woman with serious hip and knee injuries. According to the article, "Gramadge Kaur, and her husband were wearing clothes representative of their Indian culture. Authorities say an eastbound vehicle veered across the road, striking Kaur." Investigators are considering whether this is a hate crime, and detectives have gathered evidence and are seeking help in resolving the case.

A local Colorado news organization is reporting that an Islamic Center in Fort Collins, Colorado was vandalized. Specifically, "a brick was tossed through a window, breaking five panes of the thick glass and damaging some of the wooden framework." While a hate crime is not being suspected by the police, because there was "no message was left" along with the act of vandalism, the Council on American-Islamic Relations is urging the FBI to probe the matter further.

Citizens in Davis, California are demanding that sentences be enhanced when a hate crime is involved and that such enhancements be consistently and reliably applied. The concern is apparently a by-product of hate crimes enhancements not being applied to the cases of two juveniles charged with spraying racist and anti-Semitic graffiti. Interestingly, the enhancements "add to the length of a penalty or trigger a requirement for rehabilitation with diversity education."

An article appearing on BBC's web site asks the question: "What does it mean to be both Muslim and American?" The article goes on to present the considerations of several Muslim-Americans, including Azhar Usman, a Muslim-American comedian who was featured on Nightline.

(Thanks to the Pluralism Project)

Earlier this week, an article in the Des Moines Register began with the following: "A few weeks after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, Imam Ibrahim Dremali arrived at his Florida home late in the evening. As he stepped out of his car, someone jammed a double-barrel shotgun into his chest. A second man was waving a pistol so he would be sure to see it." Thinking about the attack, Dremali responded this way:

"After the tragedy of Sept. 11, 2001, they accused us of being terrorists.... We are Americans, and we are in the same boat as everyone else. I am 100 percent against what happened in New York. I came to this country to get peace and democracy. Instead of trying to divide people (with suspicions and allegations), we should work together."

(Thanks to the Pluralism Project)

The Lexington Herald-Leader contains a story that begins: "Sgt. Hasan Akbar's father urged the military yesterday to investigate religious and racial harassment his son faced from his platoon before he unleashed a 2003 grenade attack that killed two fellow soldiers."

UPDATE: Sgt. Akbar was found guilty of premeditated murder and attempted murder in an attack that killed two U.S. soldiers and and injured fourteen others.

"Canada's supreme court heard testimony Tuesday about a Sikh teenager who argued that fidelity to his religion would be broken if the government forces him to remove a ceremonial dagger concealed beneath his clothes at school."

The complete story is provided by the Chicago Tribune.

"Five Muslim-Americans filed a suit Wednesday against US Homeland Security and Customs officials, claiming their constitutional rights were violated when they tried to return home from an Islamic conference in Toronto last December." The Council on American-Islamic Relations and the New York Civil Liberties Union filed the suit on behalf of these five individuals. More on the details of the alleged violation, which included a lengthy stop and interrogation, can be found here.

UPDATE: We're providing links to the New York Civil Liberties Union's press release regarding the case, and the complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York.

The Sacramento Bee has released a fantastic editorial [registration required, but is free] that discusses the anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing, and specifically reminds us that "Terror is homegrown, too." The editorial notes:

In the immediate aftermath of the Oklahoma City bombing on April 19, 1995, suspicion focused on terrorists from the Middle East. Muslims, or people wrongly assumed to be Muslims or Arabs, were vilified and assaulted. One Muslim American was held and interrogated by police for a couple of days, and one man - a Sikh - was killed by a man who took him for a Muslim. A recent e-mail distributed by the Council on American-Islamic Relations refers to "a wave of anti-Muslim hysteria that resulted in almost 250 incidents of harassment, discrimination and actual violence against American Muslims or those perceived to be Middle Eastern.

The relevance of this history is explained in compelling language:

Why bring up all this now? Because the next terror attack in this country may again produce irrational responses, no matter how much Americans have come to realize that the great majority of Muslims, as well as people of all backgrounds, are neither terrorists nor sympathizers.... All Americans have a duty not only to be alert to the threat of terrorism and to make necessary sacrifices to defend against it, but to be prepared to keep their heads if and when another murderous assault occurs.

It is impressive that a major newspaper has released such a significant editorial and has made the dual-argument that many in the Arab, Muslim, South Asian, and Sikh communities have raised themselves since 9/11: 1) no single ethnic or religious group is responsible for acts of terrorism against this nation, and 2) even so, people should be judged as individuals (as Caucasians are so willing to do with other Caucasians) rather than on the basis of their perceived identity.

The BBC is reporting that three Sikh boys who were expelled from school for wearing turbans lost their challenge against a French law that prohibits students from wearing overt articles of faith in public schools. The article interestingly remarks that:

The French secularity law, primarily aimed at stemming the growing numbers of Muslim girls wearing headscarves in school, also prohibits the wearing of Christian crucifixes and Jewish skullcaps. The law also outlawed the Sikh turban, although French authorities have admitted they did not consider the Sikh community when the law was being drawn up.

The French law, according to press reports from February 2004, was apparently passed in an effort to "help Muslims integrate into French society and discourage extremism from flourishing among believers now meeting underground."

The Seattle Post-Intelligencer is reporting that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit upheld a judgment in favor of a Sikh-owned company that was discriminated against in violation of their civil rights, although the court vacated the $5m punitive damages award.

The facts of the case are particularly troubling given the treatment that the Sikhs in this case received; they were repeatedly called "ragheads", "diaperheads", and other epithets by a supervisor who unlawfully fired the Sikh company. In fact, the 9th circuit's decision noted that the supervisor told one of Sikh drivers to take the "f*cking rag from your head and clean" a spill.

(Thanks to How Appealing.)

This is the inaugural post on the Discrimination & National Security Initiative's new web-log. The purpose of this blog is, as noted on the right column, "to offer news and commentary in a fluid, dynamic format while our more substantive reports are forthcoming."

Specifically, we will be posting articles from the popular press, cases, opinion pieces, essays, and other insightful bits of information as often as possible so long as these materials are relevant to the central focus of this research effort or generally implicate racial discrimination of targeted minority groups.

When appropriate, we will open up comments so as to permit readers to offer up their own take on the posted item. We invite readers to submit something that we may have missed. Our desire is to keep this blog as involved and informative as possible, and really to keep the Initiative as a whole very active even when our reports are pending.

We thank you for your interest, and hope to earn your patronage.