I work for a Public Library System in Florida. We have a security guard who has received several complaints from our patrons claiming he is racist and treats African Americans with less respect than white patrons. Personally I have noticed this myself, however, his treatment of individuals is based more on a socio-economic view than skin color. He will politely enforce our code of conduct to well attired patrons, but is less lenient and tolerant to those who are of a lower socio-economic standing, regardles of color. As far as his treatment of African Americans, he is tolerant so long as they do not display any cultural identity. If an African American comes in the library with dreadlocks, he will follow them to make sure they are not stealing materials or causing trouble.
I am going to testify with our City's Equity Service Department, and I am wondering if his behavior is actually considered racist or is this more a problem with cultural bias?

I don't know if I would go so far as saying he is racist. It sounds more like the guard is profiling these folks based on there dress, hairstyles, etc....

You should tell what you observe without labeling it and let those listening to your testimony reach their own conclusions. If they have any doubt, I suspect that will ask you questions to elicit the information they need to assess whether it appears that the guard's behavior violates any laws.

However, to help you answer your own question: How does the guard treat whites or non-blacks with dreadlocks? Does he follow them around, suspicious that they will steal or cause trouble? Is the library frequented by many white patrons of lower socio-economic station? If not and there are many non-whites who are, his behavior will be viewed as treating one race differently than another. Remember the recent controversy about the response to Katrina in New Orleans. Responders were called racist simply because most of those adversely affected by the government's lack of timely response were poor and most of the poor were black. Those with means, whether white or black or another group, initially didn't need the government's help to escape the damage of Katrina.

I can't imagine that a public library wants a guard who can't treat every patron or visitor with respect regardless of socio-economic status or attire.

this guy could be racist, and profiling can be racism under guise, but he may also just be zealous. I agree that you provide information without inflection or assumption. just the facts, like dragnet. one question I have, however, is whether when he deals with minorities he goes over the line or merely goes right up to the line, but not crosses it? I would think misapplication of the rules is wrong, zealous application of the rules, but not going beyond, would be tolerable (although perhaps smack of inequality).

curt j.

Thank you for your input. I would have to say that the security guard doesn't go over the line, but his attitude and enforcement style changes depending on the race of the individual. To give an example, had a group of white youths who came into the building and were being boisterous. He went up to the group and told them, "you need to lower your voices or else you will need to go outside". The same type of incident happened with a group of African American youths, and he told them "one more loud outburst and I will trespass you out of the building". The same general message, but with a noticeably different tone and force.

I don't know if I would go so far as saying he is racist. It sounds more like the guard is profiling these folks based on there dress, hairstyles, etc.... What would you call a racist... i'm curious.

this guy could be racist, and profiling can be racism under guise, but he may also just be zealous. I agree that you provide information without inflection or assumption. just the facts, like dragnet. one question I have, however, is whether when he deals with minorities he goes over the line or merely goes right up to the line, but not crosses it? I would think misapplication of the rules is wrong, zealous application of the rules, but not going beyond, would be tolerable (although perhaps smack of inequality).

curt j. ZEALOUS? About what....blacks not behaving as he think they should or that they need more disipline than whites?

Hey, I don't like it, what this guy is doing, but the OP asked for a legal type opinon. My response is that for it to be illegal discrimination, he would have to either go beyond the law or treat differently under the law. So, if a cop on a highway lets whites go with a warning but tickets all minorities, this is illegal. However, if a cop on the highway is polite to whites when issuing a ticket, but rude to minorities (but not eggregious nor slanderous nor etc.) when issuing a ticket, but all races get tickets, then I'm not sure its illegal discrimination. Is it wrong, yes. Is it illegal disrcimination, don't think so (but I could be wrong) since he treats fairly (all get tickets) and does not step over the line (either by bullying minorities or by issuing additional tickets.

Here, if the security guard tells white kids to stop and black kids to stop, but tells black kids to stop more firmly or more gruffly, and that is it, then I don't think he has acted illegally. Has he acted improperly, yeah, I think so. Will the black kids notice the disparity and react negatively to it, yes. Will it reinforce racial stereoyping and otherwise degrade race relations, yes. Should he operate this way, no. But is it illegal, I don't think so as long as he enforces the laws/regs/rules evenly without going beyond them.

If he allows the white kids to continue talking loudly for 5 minutes yet removes the black kids after only 3 minutes, then that would be discrimination. If he considered white kids loud at 93 decibles (or whatever), yet black kids were loud at only 85 decibles (or whatever), then this too would be discrimination. But to equally enforce the rules, albeit in different styles, where the result does not change, as I think the OP was stating, is not likely illegal.

just my view of the law. Like I said, I don't agree with it, but I don't agree with a lot of the law either.

curt j.

I suspect EEOC would argue that the guard's or the cop's use of a different tone or firmness or politeness based solely on the race of the patron is a form of illegal discrimination. I would too. Many years ago my mother complained to the manager of a large national chain that she was required to wait for service, while members of another group were waited on immediately. The manager watched the salesperson for a short period, and observed the same thing. He fired the salesperson saying that it was the company's policy to treat all customers the same.