I think that the 1982 article is terrifyingly sinister and naively hilarious.

The argument in the article focuses mostly on police intervention. A kind of discretionary power to remove “undesireables” and maintain order. They do consider the misapplication of “outsider status”. Their reassurances are really, really inadequate.

From the article:
“The concern about equity is more serious. We might agree that certain behavior makes one person more undesirable than another but how do we ensure that age or skin color or national origin or harmless mannerisms will not also become the basis for distinguishing the undesirable from the desirable? How do we ensure, in short, that the police do not become the agents of neighborhood bigotry?

“We can offer no wholly satisfactory answer to this important question. We are not confident that there is a satisfactory answer except to hope that by their selection, training, and supervision, the police will be inculcated with a clear sense of the outer limit of their discretionary authority.”

And here they kind of offer a false reassurance when they use “become” as if it wasn't already a pretty systemic problem that there are quite a few police officers who use their discretionary powers in a damaging manner.

I think that the 1982 article is terrifyingly sinister and naively hilarious.

The argument in the article focuses mostly on police intervention. A kind of discretionary power to remove “undesireables” and maintain order. They do consider the misapplication of “outsider status”. Their reassurances are really, really inadequate.

From the article:
“The concern about equity is more serious. We might agree that certain behavior makes one person more undesirable than another but how do we ensure that age or skin color or national origin or harmless mannerisms will not also become the basis for distinguishing the undesirable from the desirable? How do we ensure, in short, that the police do not become the agents of neighborhood bigotry?

“We can offer no wholly satisfactory answer to this important question. We are not confident that there is a satisfactory answer except to hope that by their selection, training, and supervision, the police will be inculcated with a clear sense of the outer limit of their discretionary authority.”

And here they kind of offer a false reassurance when they use “become” as if it wasn't already a pretty systemic problem that there are quite a few police officers who use their discretionary powers in a damaging manner.

Indeed, those words could be just as easily applied to the “strangers” who, because they haven't the right color skin, accent, or belongings, fight to purchase a house in a neighborhood with better schools–to find their children are harassed, their house defaced, they are completely unwelcome, under the pretense that the grass is a half inch higher than the homeowner's association will allow…

We are less in danger from terrorists than we are from our own bigotry and hatred.