Thoughts on the TSA’s New Friskiness


Posted on November 23rd, 2010 by Katherine Franke
 6 comments  

Tomorrow starts the Thanksgiving travel crunch and there is much hullabaloo about the new TSA airport screening regulations.  Depending on the airport, one should expect either to have their body scanned or patted down in new and more thorough ways.  Apparently the new regulations are so invasive that an Arkansas man has filed an action in federal court claiming that the agency’s new screening rules are detrimental to his “emotional, psychological and mental well-being” even though the Little Rock National Airport does not yet have the full-body scanners.  Is the claim that Robert Dean, the plaintiff in the lawsuit, is suffering injury to his emotional, psychological and mental well-being because he won’t be intimately frisked?  Hard to know.

But seriously, I find it interesting that this has garnered so much attention.  When I went through the Raleigh-Durham airport last week, returning home from a talk at UNC (what a great law school, by the way), the guy behind me got singled out for “secondary screening” the old fashioned way – they wanted to “wand” him and go through his bags.  He was there with his lovely wife and two cute kids, and he made all sorts of jokes with the TSA fellow who pulled him aside, about the new screening treatment (which he wasn’t, by the way, getting): “Should we get a room?  He he he.” “My wife’s gonna be pretty jealous with you, uh, rootin’ around ‘down there’.” “Are you wearing a condom?”  Like that.  In front of the wife and kids, who were mortified.

Whatever.

The reason I raise the issue here is not to rehearse the objections raised by many others questioning the fact that it is usually scans of women’s bodies that appear in the media objections to the new technology (on the presumption that women are more violated than men in having their outlines portrayed on a video screen), or that having a stranger at the airport touching you in places you aren’t comfortable with is some kind of sexual violation, but for four other reasons:

1. The latent homophobia underlying some of the objections to a person of the same-sex as the passenger touching the passenger in what gets labeled as “the private body.”

2. The particular problems that transgender people are now facing in deciding to travel by air.  Both the body scans and the pat downs threaten to reveal “information” about trans people’s bodies in ways that are surely going to generate inappropriate and discriminatory reactions by TSA employees when the new procedures reveal objects under the passenger’s clothing such as binding, packing or prosthetic devices which may show up as unknown or unusual images on a body scan or patdown.  These as well as wigs or hairpieces may require additional screening if they are bulky or not form-fitting, and may lead TSA personnel to do additional screening.  The National Center for Transgender Equality has issued a fact-sheet on how trans travelers ought to anticipate and handle the inevitable problems they’ll encounter under the new regs.  The fact-sheet notes that:

- You have the right to choose whether a pat down is conducted in the public screening area or in a private area, and, if in a private area, whether to be accompanied by a travel companion.

- You have the right to have manual search procedures performed by an officer who is of the same gender as the gender you are currently presenting yourself as. This does not depend on the gender listed on your ID, or on any other factor. If TSA officials are unsure who should pat you down, ask to speak to a supervisor and calmly insist on the appropriate officer.

- You should not be subjected to additional screening or inquiry because of any discrepancy between a gender marker on an ID and your appearance. As long as your ID has a recognizable picture of you on it, with your legal name and birth date, it should not cause any problem.

3.  Many TSA employees are no doubt under-enthusiastic about implementing these new regs.  There will surely be issues for them in terms of workplace stress and even, in some circumstances, allegations that the regs create a sexually hostile work environment.  We live in a sex-phobic enough culture that being asked to pat down travelers in areas of the body that are commonly understood as “private” and/or “sexual” will be deemed inappropriate and illegal.  Indeed, it would have been a great strategy for Robert Dean, the Arkansas plaintiff, to include a TSA employee as a co-plaintiff in his lawsuit.  I don’t endorse this approach, but I wouldn’t be surprised if we see it raised.

Gov. Christine Whitman Frisks a Suspect in 1996

4. In interesting ways, this policy forces “regular” travelers to experience what many urban, black and brown men have had to manage for years and years at the hands, literally, of police – an invasive violation of bodily integrity in the absence of probable cause.  But this issue extends well beyond the abusive treatment of men of color by police.  New York City has agreed to pay $33 million in  damages to approximately 100,000 pretrial detainees arraigned on misdemeanors and lesser offenses who were illegally strip searched at admission to a City jail between 1999 and 2007, even though there was no reason to believe they were concealing drugs or contraband. And just last spring Justice Clarence Thomas, dissenting from the rest of the Supreme Court, thought it was reasonable for public school officials to search a 13 year old girl by having her strip down to her underpants and bra and shake them to see if any “contraband pills” dropped out, (he used a baseball bat in a pocket metaphor that was almost too bad to believe).

So now “respectable” white men are being subjected to treatment to which all the rest of us have always been vulnerable.  No wonder they’re upset, but it’s interesting they weren’t standing up for the privacy rights of friskees when this sort of thing was taking place prior to the implementation of the new TSA regs.

6 comments

  1. Thoughts on the TSA's New Friskiness http://wp.me/ploC4-ML

  2. Fascinating & insightful post from the Gender & Sexuality Law blog on new TSA screenings: http://bit.ly/dQLGVC

  3. There are definitely plenty of details like that to take into consideration. That may be a nice level to deliver up. I offer the ideas above as general inspiration however clearly there are questions just like the one you bring up where the most important thing shall be working in trustworthy good faith. I don?t know if finest practices have emerged around issues like that, however I am sure that your job is clearly recognized as a good game. Each girls and boys really feel the impression of just a second’s pleasure, for the remainder of their lives.

  4. Good day! I ciuld hhave sworn I’ve been to this site bedfore but
    after lookng at maany of thee articles I relized it’s new tto me.
    Regardless, I’m certgainly pleased I stumbld uon itt and I’ll bbe
    book-marking it andd checkin back often!

    My web-site … game (Isobel)

  5. 5 Carmine 6 alga jordan 6 sport blue clpig Space jam 11s for sale ylaq jordan carmine 6 sdug Concord 11s sjgg concord low 11s ydau Jordan 6 Sport Blue blqg Jordan 6 Sport Blue ymklga Cheap Jordan 6 vmklgq Sport Blue 3s alui Low Concord 11s ydpiq Space Jam 11s yduq Gamma Blue 11s ahlag Jordan Retro 12 Taxi yjpiq Jordan 11 vlag Concord 11s For Sale welpig Jordan 11 Concord Jordan 6 Sport Blue amklui Jordan Retro 6 cdpig Jordan 3 ahjuq Jordan Retro 11 vmklgg Gamma 11s yduq Taxi 12s ahlqu Jordan bred 11 cmklpig Foamposites For Sale cmklga Foamposites Air Yeezy yjpiq Cheap Lebron 11 ajpiq Nike Foamposite ahdui Lebron 10 vjaa Cheap Lebron 9 ahjgq

  6. what is the best free of charge website to establish a victorious blogg?

Add a comment


Comments are subject to moderation and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of
Columbia Law School or Columbia University.

FEATURED POSTS

CATEGORY CLOUD

"Homeland" Security Abortion Rights Adoption adultery Affordable Care Act Alien Tort Claims Act Amicus Brief Asylum Bankruptcy BDS Bullying Census Politics Children Citizenship Civil Unions Columbia Law School Compulsory Marriage Condoms Contraception Contraception Mandate Cordoba House Criminal Law Cures for Homosexuality Defense of Marriage Act Disability Rights Discrimination Divorce Domestic Partnership Domestic Violence Domestic Workers Don't Ask Don't Tell Economic Justice Education Egypt Elections Employment Discrimination ENDA Estate Planning Events Family Law Fellowships femininity Free Speech Gender and Technology Gender Identity Discrimination Gendering the Economy GSL Online Haiti Hate Crimes Health Care Hilary Clinton Hillary Clinton HIV HIV Discrimination Hobby Lobby Homelessness Homophobia Housing Human Rights Identity Politics Illegitimacy (sic) Immigration Reform In-ing Incest India International Law Islamophobia Israel Justice Sotomayor King & Spalding Labor Trafficking Land Reform Law School Legal Profession Legal Scholarship Lesbian & Gay Parenting LGBT Parenting Marital Status Discrimination Marriage Masculinity Medicaid Michelle Obama Migration Military National Security Obama Administration Obama Appointments Outing OWS Palestine Parenting Pinkwashing Policing Politics of the Veil Polyamory Popular Culture Pornograpy Pregnancy Presidential Politics Prisons Privacy Products Liability Profanity Prop 8 Prosecutorial Discretion Publications Public Rights/Private Conscience Queer Theory Queer vs. Gay Rights Race and Racism Racial Stereotyping Rape Religion Religious Accommodation Religious Exemption Religious Freedom Restoration Act Religious Fundamentalism Reproductive Rights Reproductive Technology RFRA Romania Rwanda Sartorial Commentary Schools Sex Discrimination Sex Education Sex Stereotyping Sexting Sex Trafficking Sexual Assault Sexual Duplicity Sexual Harassment Sexual Health Sexuality and Gender Law Clinic Sexual Orientation Discrimination Sex Work SMUG Sodomy Law Reform Sports Supreme Court Surrogacy Technology Title IX Trafficking Transgender Uganda Uncategorized Violence Women and Poverty Women of Color Zimbabwe

Academic Calendar  |  Resources for Employers  |  Campus Map & Directory  |  Columbia University  |  Jobs at Columbia  |  Contact Us

© Copyright 2009, Columbia Law School. For questions or comments, please contact the webmaster.