Show Summary Details

Page of

PRINTED FROM the OXFORD RESEARCH ENCYCLOPEDIA, CRIMINOLOGY AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE (oxfordre.com/criminology). (c) Oxford University Press USA, 2019. All Rights Reserved. Personal use only; commercial use is strictly prohibited (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

date: 17 October 2019

Race, Ethnicity, and the War on Terror

Summary and Keywords

The unofficial War on Terror that began in the wake of the September 11, 2001 terror attacks in the United States expanded a wide range of formal social controls as well as more informal methods of punitive control that were disproportionately directed toward Muslims, Arabs, Middle Easterners, and those who were perceived to be. Although terrorism had been racialized long before 9/11, this event galvanized American support for sweeping new policies and practices that specifically targeted racial and ethnic minorities, particularly those who were immigrants. New agencies and prisons were created, individual rights and civil liberties were restricted, and acts of hate and discrimination against those who were racially, ethnically, and religiously stereotyped as potential terrorists increased. Although research shows that most domestic terrorism is not perpetrated by Muslims, Arabs, or those originating from the Middle East, the racialized stereotype of terrorists had a major impact on how the War on Terror was executed and how its implementation affected members of certain minority groups in the United States.

Keywords: terrorist profiling, stereotypes, race, ethnicity, Muslim religion, fear of terrorism, war on terrorism

Introduction

Although much of the public has long associated terrorism with Muslims, Arabs, and Middle Easterners, this phenomenon has intensified in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks in the United States. Historically, American anti-terror policies have targeted immigrants from Middle Eastern or predominantly Arab or Muslim countries because of the ethnic, religious, and national affiliations of certain notorious terrorists. Pursuant to 9/11, a heinous crime perpetrated by 19 Arab airplane hijackers, the U.S. response to terrorism reached unprecedented levels of punitiveness. The various newly implemented social controls aimed at preventing terror attacks and punishing suspected terrorists became characterized as the War on Terror, a series of policies that predominantly affected members of certain racial, ethnic, and religious groups. These policies, which included the creation of the Department of Homeland Security and the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), facilitated enhanced screening capabilities that often resulted in the ethnic, racial, and religious profiling of travelers and others—a phenomenon that much of the U.S. public endorsed. The Patriot Act, another key component of the War on Terror, drew concern from civil liberties advocates because it increased surveillance capabilities of law enforcement agencies, lifted various due process restrictions on the accumulation of intelligence, and enabled government officials to access suspects’ personal documents, such as telephone records, emails, medical records, and financial reports without obtaining a warrant. As a result, thousands of Middle Easterners, Muslims, and South Asians were detained in both state and military jails, such as Abu Ghraib, where Constitutional due process rights, such as access to lawyers and knowledge of evidence, were eschewed and where torture, humiliation, and appeal-free deportations were permitted. Because the ethnic, religious, and nationality-based traits that served as proxies for potential terrorists were so inexact yet broadly applied, most of those who were detained or deported were either never tried or were proven innocent.

Beyond the formal social controls introduced in the War on Terror, informal public responses to 9/11 disproportionately targeted minorities as well. Widespread reports of public religious bias, anti-Arab discrimination, and prejudice against individuals perceived to be of Middle Eastern descent—which has frequently included Arabs, Muslims, South Asians, North Africans, Persians, and Sikhs—have been made during the War on Terror. Discrimination against these individuals became more prevalent in myriad social spheres, including schools, places of employment, and even the criminal justice system. The prevalence of hate crime and backlash violence against these individuals also sharply rose. Despite the fact that most Arabs, Muslims, and Middle Easterners are not terrorists and most terrorist acts are not committed by Arabs, Muslims, or Middle Easterners, it appears they have experienced the greatest burden of harsh War on Terror policies, terror-related public fear, prejudice, and discrimination.

Formal Anti-Terror Policies

Pre-9/11 Responses

In the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 terror attacks, the United States became increasingly punitive toward terrorism. However, the implementation of harsh policies and intense security measures that were intended to thwart terrorism was not a new phenomenon. Terrorist acts in the decades preceding the 9/11 attacks included various plane hijackings, the Iran hostage crisis, the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, and the bombing of the USS Cole, which resulted in some notable anti-terror measures. Among these policies were the “Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigration Responsibility Act” and the “Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act,” both of which were implemented in 1996 to limit opportunities for domestic acts of terror. These policies granted unprecedented authority to the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), now the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, in order to locate and deport immigrants that were determined to present a potential threat to U.S. security (Welch, 2003). It is worth noting that many of these pre-9/11 anti-terror policies were designed to target immigrants from Middle Eastern or predominantly Arab countries because of the ethnic and national affiliations of many notorious terrorists, despite the fact that most terrorists and acts of terrorism have not originated from these regions (LaFree, Morris, & Dugan, 2010; Shaheen, 2000). For example, although initially presumed to be committed by Middle Easterners, the 1995 bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City was committed by a white American citizen. There have been fewer instances of Middle Eastern, Arab, or Muslim terrorism than terrorism committed by others (Mass, 2009), and yet the close association between race or ethnicity and terror continues to be made by many.

War on Terror Policies

Pursuant to the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the U.S. response to terrorism reached unprecedented levels of punitiveness in what was termed the War on Terror. In the days, weeks, and months following September 11, there were reports of airline passengers—particularly those of Middle Eastern descent—experiencing humiliation and abuse during the course of intrusive security screening procedures (Cole, 2003; Leadership Conference on Civil Rights Education Fund, 2003). In addition, many passengers that were successfully screened by transportation security were subsequently ordered off of flights by airline crews responding to passenger complaints and to their own concerns about the apparent Arab or Muslim appearance of those passengers. These ejections of presumably suspicious passengers often came with the support of the same security officials who had already passed them through security (Leadership Conference on Civil Rights Education Fund, 2003; Verhovek, 2001). These and similar incidents lead to the recognition that “flying while Arab” was a convenient, albeit highly questionable, proxy for potential terrorists and one that could be especially precarious for travelers who appeared to be of Middle Eastern descent (Fiala, 2003; Harris, 2001). Similar to the way young black men who are driving have disproportionately experienced being pulled over by police officers (i.e., “driving while black”), there was a new widespread recognition that those who appear Middle Eastern were more likely to be subjected to intensified surveillance and social control while traveling by air.

Another post-9/11 response was that the USA PATRIOT ACT of 2001 was hastily made into law by both houses of Congress and President George W. Bush by October 26, 2001. This law was just one of several sweeping policies that expanded the government’s ability to track and manage potential terrorists. Because government leaders so urgently wanted to respond to the September 11 attacks, it is widely acknowledged that most members of Congress who voted in favor of it did not even read the legislation before it was passed (Simon, 2007). Specifically, the Patriot Act increased surveillance capabilities of law enforcement agencies and lifted various due process restrictions on the accumulation of foreign intelligence, both inside and outside U.S. borders. One result of the Patriot Act was that law enforcement and government officials could access personal documents, such as telephone records, email correspondence, medical records, and financial reports, of citizens and non-citizens without obtaining warrants. Some have argued that this initiative has violated civil liberties (American Civil Liberties Union, 2015), while others have maintained that the law, itself, does not (Kerr, 2003; Ryan, 2005; Whitehead & Aden, 2002).

What is clear is that there are racial, ethnic, and religious disparities in who has been subjected to these intrusions of privacy. The Patriot Act and its “unprecedented assertion of executive authority” (Simon, 2007, p. 266) resulted in thousands of Middle Easterners, South Asians, and those from predominantly Muslim countries living in the United States and abroad being detained in both state and military jails. This became possible because of voluntary registrations with INS and was particularly painful because detainees’ families were not permitted to be notified of their location (Chen, 2004; Cole, 2003; U.S. Department of Justice, 2003). A substantial number of individuals were interrogated about potential terrorist associations, tried for months and even years, and were not granted access to lawyers or to the evidence that contributed to their secret detentions (Chen, 2004; Cole, 2003; U.S. Department of Justice, 2003). The conditions under which suspects were held and interrogated became a subject of strong international controversy (Onwudiwe, 2005; Simon, 2007), as there was substantial evidence of verbal abuse, psychological and physical torture, and sexual humiliation of detainees, particularly those at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay (Salaita, 2006; U.S. Department of Justice, 2003). Other harsh provisions facilitated the deportations of foreign detainees without an opportunity for appeals (Cole, 2003). Further, because the racial, ethnic, and nationality-based proxies that were employed to represent potential terror supporters were so imprecise, most of the individuals detained or deported had either not yet been convicted of violating the law or they had actually been proven innocent (Cole, 2003).

Further evidence of increased social control in the War on Terror includes the creation of several new U.S. institutions that focused on preventing terrorism. These include the Transportation and Security Administration (TSA), which uses a range of screening technologies, including explosive-detecting technology and full-body scanners (TSA, 2015), and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, which was designed to prevent future attacks and notify the public of terrorist threat levels through its color-coding system. The establishment of new government offices led to extensive hiring. Even U.S. governmental institutions that existed prior to 9/11, such as the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), hired more employees to facilitate greater emphasis on discovering and thwarting terrorist plots (McRoberts, 2001). This exacerbated racial and ethnic disparities in the War on Terror, because it meant there would be more resources to expand a wide range of social controls.

The profile of a terrorist as a Muslim of Middle Eastern or North African descent eventually manifested in a controversial 2017 executive order (officially titled “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States”) by U.S. President Donald Trump, which aimed to block individuals from certain predominantly Muslim countries from entering the country. In what was widely referred to as the “Muslim ban” or “travel ban,” admission to the United States was suspended for citizens of Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen. It also reduced the overall number of refugees to be admitted. Because of widespread protest and legal intervention that blocked the ban’s implementation on the basis of discrimination and limits of presidential power, the executive order was modified. Certain components of the order, however, were upheld in a five–four vote by the U.S. Supreme Court in the case Trump v. Hawaii. This initiative continues to be considered in the judicial system.

The United States has not been alone in its efforts to intensify anti-terror policies and practices and it was not alone in disproportionally targeting persons of color as terrorist suspects. In response to 9/11, the United Kingdom swiftly adopted the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act, which has since been replaced by the Prevention of Terrorism Act of 2005. These laws impede various individual freedoms and civil liberties guaranteed by U.K. national mandates of liberty (Logan, 2007). As with the United States, the United Kingdom has attempted to protect its citizens from attacks while also trying to protect its citizens’ rights, but has ultimately imposed limits on individual freedoms—particularly those related to freedom of expression—in the interest of national security (Logan, 2007). The Canadian government also supported limits on civil liberties following the American terror attacks of 2001 (Crépau & Jimenez, 2004). Among Australia’s anti-terror policies that were passed in response to the attacks was one endorsing certain racial profiling tactics that target any potential illegal activity of Middle Easterners, Arabs, and Muslims (Chong, 2006).

Public Support for Racial and Ethnic Profiling in the War on Terror

The War on Terror extended beyond the implementation of anti-terror policies and practices. Since 9/11, much of the American public has demonstrated considerable support for harsh national policies aimed at preventing terrorism and punishing suspected terrorists, even when those effects produced racially and ethnically disparate outcomes (Council on American–Islamic Relations Research Center, 2006; Panagopoulos, 2006; Sullivan & Hendriks, 2009). When the Patriot Act was first proposed, the public overwhelmingly endorsed its passage (Dietz, 2002; Locy, 2004), despite the considerable criticism it has since encountered. In the year after the attacks, over half of Americans felt that immigration laws should be tightened, 42% felt the government should have more power to monitor Muslims more closely than other groups, and one-third of Americans supported placing Arabs and Arab Americans in the United States under special surveillance (Panagopoulos, 2006). Additionally, polls showed that 44% of the public supported restricting civil liberties of U.S. Muslims and those with Middle Eastern heritage in order to promote security (Nisbet & Shanahan, 2004). Further, 17% of the public believed it is acceptable to incarcerate Muslims “just in case they are planning terrorist acts” (Council on American–Islamic Relations Research Center, 2006, p. 5). It has become evident that the War on Terror was not only manifesting in racially and ethnically disparate social control, but that it included the public’s support for racial, ethnic, and religious profiling.

While public support for racial and ethnic profiling at airports had been long-standing (Gabbidon, Penn, Jordan, & Higgins, 2009), it increased after 9/11. A U.S. poll taken before the attacks showed that only 20% of the public approved of airport profiling (Gallup Poll, 1999), but in public surveys after 9/11, support increased to between 25% and 60% (Cole, 2003; Gabbidon, Higgins, & Nelson, 2012; Johnson et al., 2011; Verhovek, 2001). Airline passengers’ concerns about the appearances and behaviors of other passengers, such as wearing long beards or headscarves and praying in another language, also led to numerous unsubstantiated requests that the presumably suspicious individuals be removed from flights—some of which met with success (Associated Press, 2009; Leadership Conference on Civil Rights Education Fund, 2003). Additionally, although there is controversy about the appropriate degree of screening that should be undergone by passengers at airports, there has been long-standing public support for screening young Middle Eastern men more carefully than others (Forst, 2009; Ghareeb, 1983), with 53% of Americans favoring the requirement that Arabs and Arab Americans undergo more intensive security checks (Saad, 2006). Whether supportive or not, 60% of Americans believed that racial profiling at airports had been occurring (Gabbidon et al., 2009).

Racial, Ethnic, and Religious Stereotypes of Terrorists

Terrorism has become racially and ethnically typified much like crime in the United States has been (Welch, 2016). Racialized portrayals of Middle Easterners and Muslims as terrorists have some important similarities with entrenched criminal stereotypes frequently applied to black and Hispanic men (Cole, 2003; Leadership Conference on Civil Rights Education Fund, 2003; Selod, 2015; Simon, 2007). Specifically, they have all been the subject of threat-related stereotypes that have fueled discrimination and profiling (Welch, 2016). Just as the War on Crime that began in the 1980s exacerbated racial and ethnic disparities in an increasingly punitive criminal justice system, the War on Terror disproportionately targeted and subordinated those whose racial, ethnic, and religious profiles were presumed to be dangerous (Huq & Muller, 2008). It seems that in contemporary American society, Middle Easterners, and “those who look Arab or Muslim” (Grewal, 2003, p. 541), have become “the new racial Other” (Grewal, 2003, p. 546), resulting in many who “equate Arab or Muslim male with ‘terrorist’” (Cole, 2003, p. 49). Moreover, because the terrorist stereotype is not just limited to race, ethnicity, nationality, or religion (Chen, 2010), the profile of a terrorist has been applied to individuals who are neither Middle Eastern, Arab, nor Muslim (Kaplan, 2006; Leadership Conference on Civil Rights Education Fund, 2003).

As with the racial and ethnic stereotyping of criminals as black and Hispanic, “a face has also been put on terror, and it is Arab” (Merskin, 2004, p. 157). Ethnic and religious stereotypes linking terrorism to certain Middle Easterners are ubiquitous (Blasing, 1996; Jenkins, 2003; Said, 1997) and may be at least partially responsible for fostering some degree of punitiveness toward terrorism. Those of Middle Eastern descent, including many Arabs, Muslims, and others, are often believed to be full of “hatred” (Council on American–Islamic Relations Research Center, 2006, p. 2), “violent” (Marvasti & McKinney, 2004, p. 53), and “disproportionately prone to violence” (Deane & Fears, 2006, p. 1). They are characterized as “dangerous” (Kamalipour, 2000, p. 89), “machine-gun-toting” (Blasing, 1996, p. 107) “terrorists” (Council on American–Islamic Relations Research Center, 2006, p. 2; Marvasti & McKinney, 2004, p. 53; Said, 1997), and “savage fanatics” (Jenkins, 2003, p. 150) who are intent on “destruction” (Kamalipour, 2000, p. 89). It is notable that while these stereotypes were certainly exacerbated by the 9/11 attacks and subsequent War on Terror, they flourished long before then (Ahmad & Szpara, 2003; Akram, 2002; Blasing, 1996; Said, 1997).

Considering the prevalence of media depictions of terrorists as apparently Middle Eastern (American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee Research Institute, 2008; Archbold, Dahle, Fangman, Wentz, & Wood, 2013; Said, 1997; Suleiman, 1988, 1999), it is not surprising that “the vast majority of Americans—and many Europeans—do have a stereotype in mind when [they] think of terrorists, and that stereotype is of someone of Arab descent” (Ervin, 2006, p. 1; Shaheen, 2003) or a Muslim (Said, 1997). However, this stereotype is far from accurate: While it is clear that most Middle Easterners, Arabs, and Muslims are not terrorists (Forst, 2009; Leadership Conference on Civil Rights Education Fund, 2003), it is also true that the greatest source of terrorist threat does not originate in the Middle East or from Muslims (Nance, 2008; U.S. Department of State, 2018). Media portrayals and the fact that all 19 of the 9/11 hijackers were Arab may contribute to the popular perception that the most frequent and dire acts of terror are committed by Middle Easterners (Archbold et al., 2013; Jenkins, 2003) and Muslims (Mass, 2009), even though more terrorist acts are committed by Latin Americans, Africans, citizens of former Soviet territories, and Communists (LaFree et al., 2010; Mass, 2009; U.S. Department of State, 2018). Although race, ethnicity, and religion are often used as proxies for terrorist involvement, most of those suspected of it have been found innocent (Hashad, 2004). Regardless, Arabs, Muslims, and South Asians have felt especially compelled to alter their performative aspects of race after 9/11 (Patel, 2005).

These stereotypes have consequences for public attitudes and support for public policy (Green, 2006). Just as racial and ethnic criminal stereotypes have been shown to contribute to increased punitiveness toward crime and to the disproportionate number of black and Hispanic convicts who are under some form of correctional control (Chiricos, Welch, & Gertz, 2004; Welch, Payne, Chiricos, & Gertz, 2011), research has found that stereotypes related to those who are perceived to be Arab, Muslim, or Middle Eastern are partially responsible for some degree of punitiveness toward terrorism and for the diminished civil liberties and harsh treatment of suspected terrorists (Welch, 2016). It is plausible that it is precisely because terrorism has been racialized that there was such strong support for the War on Terror.

Bias, Discrimination, and Hate Crimes Against Middle Easterners, Arabs, and Muslims

The incidence of hate crimes and “backlash violence” against individuals perceived to be of Middle Eastern descent, which often includes Arabs, South Asians, North Africans, Persians, Sikhs, and Muslims from various countries, rose sharply in the aftermath of 9/11 (American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, 2008; Kaplan, 2006; Panagopoulos, 2006, p. 609; Singh, 2002). Law enforcement agencies and the Council on American–Islamic Relations (2006) received many more reports of beatings and death threats directed toward “persons appearing Arab or Muslim” than the year preceding 9/11, and the federal government received 17 times as many reports of racially and ethnically motivated harassment and physical attacks in the year following 9/11 than the year before (Singh, 2002). While some may presume that the number of these incidents might decrease over time, it appears there was a 584% increase in the number of anti-Muslim hate crimes in the United States from 2014 to 2016 (Kishi, 2017). There was also an increase in reports of threats and hate speech against those perceived to be Middle Eastern since 9/11 (American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee Research Institute, 2008; Cole, 2003), which has frequently resulted in feelings of humiliation and fear (Merskin 2004; Peek, 2003). In addition, there were a number of “racial” type hoaxes related to those perceived to be Middle Eastern that involved false allegations of terrorist activity (Altheide, 2006).

While the number of hate crimes committed against those perceived to be of Middle Eastern origin rose dramatically, the incidence is somewhat limited compared with public prejudice and discrimination against these individuals (Selod, 2015; Zainiddinov, 2016). Widespread reports of public religious bias (Armour, 2005; Elver, 2012; Zainiddinov, 2016), anti-Arab discrimination (Cole, 2003; Macfarquhar, 2006), and prejudice against those perceived to be Middle Eastern and Muslims (Council on American–Islamic Relations Research Center, 2006; Gabbidon et al., 2012) have been made since 9/11. Workplace discrimination against Muslims, South Asians, and Arab Americans became more prevalent, and is actually the second most common context (after government) for a discriminatory incident (Armour, 2005; Cainkar, 2009). Children who are perceived to be Middle Eastern have even reported prejudice and humiliation by other students in schools, which has contributed to greater academic discrimination (Merskin, 2004). Defense lawyers have expressed concern that jurors view their clients who “look Middle Eastern” more negatively than others, thus influencing case outcomes (Marvasti & McKinney, 2004, p. 154). One British study found significant increases in negative experiences related to race, ethnicity, and religion among Muslims, as well as both subtle and overt racism and religious discrimination (Sheridan, 2006).

While it is a legitimate concern of governments to keep the public protected from terrorist victimization (Logan, 2007), many have expressed concern that War on Terror efforts have disproportionately and negatively affected racial, ethnic, and religious minorities (Cole, 2003; Harcourt, 2007). Specifically, Arabs, Muslims, and certain Middle Easterners are experiencing the greatest burden of harsh anti-terror policies, terror-related public fear, prejudice, and discrimination (Braman, 2004; Cainkar, 2009; Macfarquhar, 2007).

Conclusion

Research has shown that threatening stereotypes of blacks and Hispanics as criminals has increased support for War on Crime policies in the United States that have disproportionately targeted and punished minorities (Chiricos et al., 2004; Welch et al., 2011). Threatening stereotypes of Middle Easterners as terrorists have similarly increased support for War on Terror policies (Welch, 2016) that have not only disproportionately targeted minorities (Braman, 2004; Gabbidon et al., 2009, 2012; Huq & Muller, 2008), but have also arguably diminished freedoms and liberties of all Americans and non-citizens living in the United States (Harcourt, 2007; Merskin, 2004; Simon, 2007). The implementation of a range of government policies to address terrorism has resulted in what some believe is an unparalleled reduction in both civil liberties and due process protections, as well as a number of new measures to punish suspected terrorists more severely than ever before. The racialized aspect of the public’s endorsement of these War on Terror laws may have helped facilitate the continuance of many of these policies that have resulted in what some consider social injustice and a general erosion of human rights (Harcourt, 2007; Merskin, 2004). While many have argued that the response to the 9/11 terror attacks is understandable, others have expressed concerns that certain particularly harsh policies may have been supported because of the influence of prejudicial racialized stereotypes of Arabs, Muslims, and others perceived to be Middle Eastern as terrorists.

Further Reading

Alsultany, E. (2012). Arabs and Muslims in the media: Race and representation after 9/11. New York: NYU Press.Find this resource:

Chen, M. H. (2010). Alienated: A reworking of the racialization thesis after September 11. American University Journal of Gender Social Policy and Law, 18, 411–437.Find this resource:

Cherney, A., & Murphy, K. (2016). Being a “suspect community” in a post 9/11 world: The impact of the war on terror on Muslim communities in Australia. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 49, 480–496.Find this resource:

Davis, D. W., & Silver, B. D. (2004). Civil liberties vs. security: Public opinion in the context of the terrorist attacks on America. American Journal of Political Science, 48, 28–46.Find this resource:

Esser, E. G. (2016). Delayed disengagement from dissimilar others: Evidence of implicit biases from eyetracking? Thesis available at digilib.gmu.edu.Find this resource:

Fiala, I. J. (2003). Anything new? The racial profiling of terrorists. Criminal Justice Studies, 16, 53–58.Find this resource:

Forst, B. (2009). Terrorism, crime, and public policy. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:

Gabbidon, S. L., Higgins, G. E., & Nelson, M. (2012). Public support for racial profiling in airports: Results from a statewide poll. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 23, 254–269.Find this resource:

Grewal, I. (2003). Transnational America: Race, gender and citizenship after 9/11. Social Identities, 9, 535–61.Find this resource:

Harcourt, B. E. (2007). Muslim profiles post-9/11: Is racial profiling an effective counter-terrorist measure and does it violate the right to be free from discrimination. In B. Goold & L. Lazarus (Eds.), Security and human rights (pp. 73–98). Portland, OR: Hart.Find this resource:

Hashad, D. (2004). Stolen freedoms: Arabs, Muslims, and South Asians in the wake of post 9/11 backlash. Denver University Law Review, 81, 735–747.Find this resource:

Huq, A. Z., & Muller, C. (2008). The War on Crime as precursor to the War on Terror. International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice, 36, 215–229.Find this resource:

Jenkins, P. (2003). Images of terror: What we can and can’t know about terrorism. New York: Walter de Gruyter.Find this resource:

Johnson, D., Brazier, D., Forrest, K., Ketelhut, C., Mason, D., & Mitchell, M. (2011). Attitudes toward the use of racial/ethnic profiling to prevent crime and terrorism. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 22, 422–447.Find this resource:

Kaplan, J. (2006). Islamophobia in America? September 11 and Islamophobic hate crime. Terrorism and Political Violence, 18, 1–33.Find this resource:

Merskin, D. (2004). The construction of Arabs as enemies: Post-September 11 discourse of George W. Bush. Mass Communication and Society, 7, 157–175.Find this resource:

Nance, M. (2008). How (not) to spot a terrorist. Foreign Policy, 166, 74–76.Find this resource:

Onwudiwe, I. D. (2005). Defining terrorism, racial profiling and the demonization of Arabs and Muslims in the USA. Community Safety Journal, 4, 4–11.Find this resource:

Panagopoulos, C. (2006). The polls—trends: Arab and Muslim Americans and Islam in the aftermath of 9/11. Public Opinion Quarterly, 70, 608–624.Find this resource:

Patel, S. (2005). Performative aspects of race: “Arab, Muslim, and South Asian” racial formation after September 11. UCLA Asian Pacific American Law Journal, 10, 61–87.Find this resource:

Salaita, S. (2006). Anti-Arab racism in the USA: Where it comes from and what it means for politics today. London: Pluto Press.Find this resource:

Selod, S., & Embrick, D. (2013). Racialization and Muslims: Situating the Muslim experience in race scholarship. Sociology Compass, 7, 644–655.Find this resource:

Singh, A. (2002). “We are not the enemy”: Hate crimes against Arabs, Muslims, and those perceived to be Arab or Muslim after September 11. Human Rights Watch, 14, 1–40.Find this resource:

Smith, A. L., & Mason, S. E. (2016). The age of racial profiling in the context of terrorism. Modern Psychological Studies, 21, 75–82.Find this resource:

Welch, K. (2016). Middle Eastern terrorist stereotypes and anti-terror policy support: The effect of perceived minority threat. Race and Justice, 6, 117–145.Find this resource:

References

Ahmad, I., & Szpara, M. Y. (2003). Muslim children in urban America: The New York City schools experience. Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs, 23, 295–301.Find this resource:

Akram, S. M. (2002). The aftermath of September 11, 2001: The targeting of Arabs and Muslims in America. Arab Studies Quarterly, 24, 61–118.Find this resource:

Altheide, D. L. (2006). Terrorism and the politics of fear. Critical Studies Critical Methodologies, 6, 415–439.Find this resource:

American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee Research Institute. (2008). Report on hate crimes and discrimination against Arab Americans 2003–2007.Find this resource:

American Civil Liberties Union. (2015). How the USA-Patriot Act expands law enforcement “sneak and peek” warrants.Find this resource:

Archbold, C. A., Dahle, T. O., Fangman, M., Wentz, E., & Wood, M. (2013). Newspaper accounts of racial profiling: Accurate portrayal or perpetuation of myth? Race and Justice, 3, 300–320.Find this resource:

Armour, S. (2005). Post-9/11 workplace discrimination continues. USA Today, July 6.Find this resource:

Associated Press (2009). Airline apologizes for removing Muslims. MSNBC, January 2.Find this resource:

Blasing, R. (1996). Islam: Stereotypes still prevail. Social Education, 60, 107–110.Find this resource:

Braman, D. (2004). Doing time on the outside: Incarceration and family life in urban America. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Find this resource:

Cainkar, L. (2009) Homeland insecurity: The Arab American and Muslim American experience after 9/11. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Find this resource:

Chen, M. H. (2010). Alienated: A reworking of the racialization thesis after September 11. American University Journal of Gender Social Policy and Law, 18, 411–437.Find this resource:

Chen, R. K. (2004). State incarceration of federal prisoners after September 11: Whose jail is it anyway? Brooklyn Law Review, 69, 1335–1368.Find this resource:

Chiricos, T., Welch, K., & Gertz, M. (2004). The racial typification of crime and support for punitive measures. Criminology, 42, 359–389.Find this resource:

Chong, A. (2006). Anti-terror laws and the Muslim community: Where does terror end and security begin?Borderlands Journal, 5.Find this resource:

Cole, D. (2003). Enemy aliens: Double standards and constitutional freedoms in the War on Terrorism. New York: New Press.Find this resource:

Council on American–Islamic Relations Research Center. (2006). American public opinion about Islam and Muslims.Find this resource:

Crépau, F., & Jimenez, E. (2004). Foreigners and the right to justice in the aftermath of 9/11. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 27, 609–626.Find this resource:

Deane, C., & Fears, D. (2006, March 9). Negative perception of Islam increasing. The Washington Post, A01.Find this resource:

Dietz, D. (2002). UO forum examines reach of Patriot Act. Register Guard, October 25.Find this resource:

Elver, H. (2012). Racializing Islam before and after 9/11: From melting pot to Islamophobia. Transnational Law & Contemporary Problems, 21, 119–174.Find this resource:

Ervin, C. K. (2006). Stereotyping terrorists: The usual suspects. International Herald Tribune, June 27.Find this resource:

Fiala, I. J. (2003). Anything new? The racial profiling of terrorists. Criminal Justice Studies, 16, 53–58.Find this resource:

Forst, B. (2009). Terrorism, crime, and public policy. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:

Gabbidon, S. L., Higgins, G. E., & Nelson, M. (2012). Public support for racial profiling in airports: Results from a statewide poll. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 23, 254–269.Find this resource:

Gabbidon, S. L., Penn, E. B., Jordon, K. L., & Higgins, G. E. (2009). The influence of race/ethnicity on the perceived prevalence and support for racial profiling at airports. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 20, 344–358.Find this resource:

Gallup Poll. (1999). Do you approve or disapprove of the use of “racial profiling” by police? Roper Center for Public Opinion Research (WESTLAW, USGALLUP 120999 R6 009).Find this resource:

Ghareeb, E. (1983) Split vision: The portrayal of Arabs in the American media. Washington, DC: American-Arab Affairs Council. Washington DCFind this resource:

Green, D. A. (2006). Public opinion versus public judgment about crime: Correcting the comedy of errors. British Journal of Criminology, 46, 131–154.Find this resource:

Grewal, I. (2003). Transnational America: Race, gender and citizenship after 9/11. Social Identities, 9, 535–561.Find this resource:

Harcourt, B. E. (2007). Muslim profiles post-9/11: Is racial profiling an effective counter-terrorist measure and does it violate the right to be free from discrimination. In B. Goold & L. Lazarus (Eds.), Security and human rights (pp. 73–98). Portland, OR: Hart.Find this resource:

Harris, D. A. (2001). “Flying while Arab”: Immigration issues and lessons from the racial profiling controversy. Briefing for the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. Hon. Mary Frances Berry, Chair, Washington, DC.Find this resource:

Hashad, D. (2004). Stolen freedoms: Arabs, Muslims, and South Asians in the wake of post 9/11 backlash. Denver University Law Review, 81, 735–747.Find this resource:

Huq, A. Z., & Muller, C. (2008). The War on Crime as precursor to the War on Terror. International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice, 36, 215–229.Find this resource:

Jenkins, P. (2003). Images of terror: What we can and can’t know about terrorism. New York: Walter de Gruyter.Find this resource:

Johnson, D., Brazier, D., Forrest, K., Ketelhut, C., Mason, D., & Mitchell, M. (2011). Attitudes toward the use of racial/ethnic profiling to prevent crime and terrorism. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 22, 422–447.Find this resource:

Kamalipour, Y. R. (2000). The TV terrorist: Media images of Middle Easterners. Global Dialogue, 2, 88–96.Find this resource:

Kaplan, J. (2006). Islamophobia in America? September 11 and Islamophobic hate crime. Terrorism and Political Violence, 18, 1–33.Find this resource:

Kerr, O. S. (2003). Internet surveillance law after the USA Patriot Act: The Big Brother that isn’t. Northwestern University Law Review, 607, 1–69.Find this resource:

Kishi, K. (2017). Assaults against Muslims in U.S. surpass 2001 level. Pew Research Center, November 15.Find this resource:

LaFree, G., Morris, N. A., & Dugan, L. (2010). Cross-national patterns of terrorism: Comparing trajectories for total, attributed and fatal attacks, 1970–2006. British Journal of Criminology, 50, 622–649.Find this resource:

Leadership Conference on Civil Rights Education Fund. (2003). Wrong then, wrong now: Racial profiling before and after September 11, 2001.Find this resource:

Locy, T. (2004). Patriot Act blurred in the public mind. USA Today, February 26, p. A5.Find this resource:

Logan, C. C. (2007). Liberty or safety: Implications of the USA Patriot Act and the UK’s Anti-Terror Laws on freedom of expression and free exercise of religion. Seton Hall Law Review, 37, 863–891.Find this resource:

Macfarquhar, N. (2006). Suit seeks data on immigration profiling of Arabs. The New York Times, 18 October.Find this resource:

Macfarquhar, N. (2007). Abandon stereotypes, Muslims in America say. New York Times, September 4.Find this resource:

McRoberts, F. (2001). Many ready to join anti-terrorism fight; FBI, CIA, FAA find themselves deep in job applications. Chicago Tribune, September 28.Find this resource:

Marvasti, A., & McKinney, K. D. (2004). Middle Eastern lives in America. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.Find this resource:

Mass, W. (2009). Iran agrees to nuclear fuel deal. New American, October 21.Find this resource:

Merskin, D. (2004). The construction of Arabs as enemies: Post-September 11 discourse of George W. Bush. Mass Communication and Society, 7, 157–175.Find this resource:

Nance, M. (2008). How (not) to spot a terrorist. Foreign Policy, 166, 74–76.Find this resource:

Nisbet, E. C., & Shanahan, J. (2004). MSRG special report: Restrictions on civil liberties, views of Islam, and Muslim American.Find this resource:

Onwudiwe, I. D. (2005). Defining terrorism, racial profiling and the demonization of Arabs and Muslims in the USA. Community Safety Journal, 4, 4–11.Find this resource:

Panagopoulos, C. (2006). The polls—trends: Arab and Muslim Americans and Islam in the aftermath of 9/11. Public Opinion Quarterly, 70, 608–624.Find this resource:

Patel, S. (2005). Performative aspects of race: “Arab, Muslim, and South Asian” racial formation after September 11. UCLA Asian Pacific American Law Journal, 10, 61–87.Find this resource:

Peek, L. A. (2003). Reactions and response: Muslim students’ experiences on New York City campuses post 9/11. Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs, 23, 271–283.Find this resource:

Ryan, K. V. (2005). PATRIOT Act has major advantages. Daily Californian, May 31.Find this resource:

Saad, L. (2006). “Grin and bear it” is motto for most air travelers: Seven in 10 see new liquids ban as justified. Gallup News Service, September 6.Find this resource:

Said, E. W. (1997). Covering Islam: How the media and the experts determine how we see the world. New York: Vintage Books.Find this resource:

Salaita, S. (2006). Anti-Arab racism in the USA: Where it comes from and what it means for politics today. London: Pluto Press.Find this resource:

Selod, S. (2015). Citizenship denied: The racialization of Muslim American men and women post-9/11. Critical Sociology, 41, 77–95.Find this resource:

Selod, S., & Embrick, D. (2013). Racialization and Muslims: Situating the Muslim experience in race scholarship. Sociology Compass, 7, 644–655.Find this resource:

Shaheen, J. G. (2000). Hollywood’s Muslim Arabs. Muslim World, 90, 22–42.Find this resource:

Shaheen, J. G. (2003). Reel bad Arabs: How Hollywood vilifies a people. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 588, 171–193.Find this resource:

Sheridan, L. P. (2006). Islamophobia pre- and post-September 11th, 2001. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 21, 317–336.Find this resource:

Simon, J. (2007). Governing through crime: How the War on Crime transformed American democracy and created a culture of fear. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Find this resource:

Suleiman, M. W. (1988). The Arabs in the mind of America. Battleboro, VT: Amana.Find this resource:

Suleiman, M. W. (1999) Islam, Muslims, and Arabs in America: The other of the other of the other. Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs, 19, 33–48.Find this resource:

Sullivan, J. L., & Hendriks, H. (2009). Public support for civil liberties pre- and post-9/11. Law and Social Science, 5, 375–391.Find this resource:

Transportation and Security Administration. (2015). Traveler Information.Find this resource:

U.S. Department of Justice. (2003). The September 11 detainees: A review of the treatment of aliens held on immigration charges in connection with the investigation of the September 11 terrorist attacks.Find this resource:

U.S. Department of State. (2018). Country Reports on Terrorism 2017. Washington, DC: Bureau of Counterterrorism.Find this resource:

Verhovek, S. H. (2001). A nation challenged: Civil liberties; Americans give in to race profiling. New York Times, September 23.Find this resource:

Welch, K. (2016). Middle Eastern terrorist stereotypes and anti-terror policy support: The effect of perceived minority threat. Race and Justice, 6, 117–145.Find this resource:

Welch, K., Payne, A. A., Chiricos, T., & Gertz, M. (2011). The typification of Hispanics as criminals and support for punitive crime control policies. Social Science Research, 40, 822–840.Find this resource:

Welch, M. (2003). Ironies of social control and the criminalization of immigrants. Crime, Law and Social Change, 39, 319–337.Find this resource:

Whitehead, J. W., & Aden, S. H. (2002). Forfeiting “Enduring Freedom” for “Homeland Security”: A constitutional analysis of the USA Patriot Act and the Justice Department’s anti-terrorism initiatives. American University Law Review, 51, 1081–1133.Find this resource:

Zainiddinov, H. (2016). Racial and ethnic differences in perceptions of discrimination among Muslim Americans. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 39, 2701–2721.Find this resource: