I may be wrong on this but isn't one of the principal responsibilities of every police department and their counterparts on university security police departments to prevent crime and apprehend criminals?

Apparently the Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ) doesn't think so anymore than do black activists at the University of Minnesota.

In an article in their magazine, SPJ redundantly warned their membership that when reporting racial violence, mentioning race in their stories is a journalistic no-no, in their politically correct opinion and regardless of the obvious fact that identifying the race of an assailant, a rapist, a mugger, etc. is critical to catching and prosecuting them and is usually among the first questions asked by 911 dispatchers and among the first detail dispatchers transmit to patrol cars.

According to WND.com, the article reflected "what dozens of chapters around the country tell its members in regular seminars: Unless someone is considerate enough to wave around a sign saying, 'Kill Honky,' or issue a press release or utter racial expletives in front of lots of witnesses, the fact that the suspects just happen to be black has no bearing on the story."

The oldest and largest organization of journalists in America very unprofessionally added that anyone doubting their no-no policy, was probably a "racist and hater."

Oddly coincidental with the SPJ's major breach of journalistic ethics, members of UM's African American and African Studies, Black Faculty and Staff Association, Black Graduate and Professional Student Association, Black Men's Forum, Black Student Union and Huntley House for African American Males jointly directed a letter to UM president and a vp.

The letter, sent over a month after the campus locked down because of an attempted robbery and after university police had wrongfully identified a black student as the suspect, made no mention of the school's 25 robberies, an increase of 27% percent over the last few years, but it did register a slew of black complaints.

While initially professing deep concern over campus safety, the letter-writers clearly felt that racial profiling was their overriding interest since it could be absolutely devastating for black male students.

An excerpt: "[We] unanimously agree that campus safety should be of the UMPD's utmost importance; however, efforts to reduce crime should never be at the expense of our Black men, or any specific group of people likely to be targeted. In addition to causing Black men to feel unsafe and distrusted, racial profiling is proven to inflict negative psychological effects on its victims."

At a forum on the profiling issue, Ian Taylor Jr., president of the Black Men's Forum, said members of his organization feel threatened when racial description of suspects are provided in university crime alerts. Taylor bemoaned, "The repeated black, black, black suspect. And what that does it really discomforts [sic] the mental and physical comfort for students on campus because they feel like suspicions begin to increase."

To her credit, UM's Vice President of Human Services Pamela Wheelock issued a statement: "I firmly believe that a well-informed community is an asset to public safety... I believe that sharing more information in our Crime Alerts, not less, is most beneficial in terms of public safety, especially when that information is available."

There's no word as of now if Ms. Wheelock is still employed at UM.

Certainly, no American wants anyone to feel targeted, unsafe, distrusted, discomforted, or psychologically damaged. However, logic dictates that those most inclined to break our laws be profiled for the safety of those who could be "damaged" in far worse ways than being profiled: Although the overall murder rate in America has declined, it is rising pecipitously among those "psychologically damaged." Blacks, who comprise less than 14% of the population, commit murder at nearly ten times the White rate.

The question, therefore, boils down to whether the Society of Professional Journalists and radical black agitators at the University of Minnesotta-as well as New York City's new "progressive" Mayor De Blasio-are correct in assuming racial profiling constitutes racial discrimination.

Is stopping, questioning, and sometimes frisking people of any race more beneficial to society-and especially to residents of crime-ridden black neighborhoods-than rampant crime? Do omissions of racial identities in news stories contribute to criminal activity or make it more difficult to locate suspects, or both? When university security police avoid mentioning specifically what suspects look like, are they encouraging miscreants to continue their behavior with no fear of detection?

If you answer "yes" to any or all those questions, the SPJ would definitely consider you a racist and blacks at the University of Minnesotta would surely concur.