This paper addresses two key challenges in police personnel management. The first concerns how interviewers can identify racist or bigoted ideologies in police applicants through both direct and scenario-based questioning techniques. The second examines whether pro-life officers should be excused from providing security for pro-choice demonstrators on religious grounds. The paper argues that while direct questions signal zero tolerance for bigotry, indirect and scenario-based questions reveal more authentic beliefs. On the question of religious conflict, the paper concludes that officers are obligated to enforce all laws uniformly and that allowing selective duty assignments based on personal conscience would undermine equal protection under the law.
When interviewing a police applicant, it is possible to ask direct questions regarding his or her legal beliefs. For example, an interviewer might ask: "Do you believe that all persons are entitled to equal treatment under the law?" or "Do you believe that the U.S. Constitution applies to all citizens, regardless of their race, creed, or color?" More personal questions are also valid, such as: "Do you believe that people of similar backgrounds should stick together?" and "Do you believe that certain types of people are more likely to commit crimes, and why?"
While such direct questions are important — in part because they signal to the candidate that bigotry has no place on the force — it is equally important to ask less obvious questions in order to understand the candidate's thinking processes and ensure that he or she is not concealing true beliefs.
Presenting various scenarios is one effective way to probe for hidden bias. For example: "You are on routine patrol and see an African-American male standing on a street corner. What thoughts go through your mind? Do you stop and speak to him?" Questions of this kind encourage the applicant to respond instinctively, making it harder to offer a rehearsed answer that masks underlying prejudice.
It is also valid to ask more general philosophical questions, such as: "Are the rights of individuals more important than the duty of the officer to investigate crime?" This question is particularly revealing because it often surfaces when an officer attempts to defend racial profiling as a way to protect the community (Williams, 2013). A related follow-up question might be: "Is racial profiling valid in any form of daily police work? What is the difference between racial profiling and identifying a suspect based on a victim's description?" Together, these questions help assess whether a candidate genuinely understands and respects constitutional limits on law enforcement conduct.
A separate but equally important question of conscience arises when pro-life officers are assigned to provide security for pro-choice demonstrators. If those officers are needed to protect pro-choice protesters at a clinic and to prevent violence and civic unrest, then yes — they must perform that duty. It must be stressed that the officers are not defending abortion as a practice; rather, they are enforcing the law. Officers do not have the ability to selectively choose which laws they wish to uphold. They are required to enforce all laws uniformly as part of their professional obligation.
Under the law, women have the legal right to obtain abortions without being harassed or threatened outside a clinic. Groups also have the legal right to protest, provided they do so within the parameters established by law. Officers may even be called upon to protect racist or otherwise unpopular demonstrators as part of their duties. Providing protection does not constitute endorsement of the speech or conduct being protected. As the First Amendment makes clear, the government's obligation to protect lawful expression applies regardless of the content of that expression.
"Selective duty exemptions undermine equal protection"
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.