Is racial or religious profiling ever justified? Ten years after 9/11, the U.S. is still trying to balance safety and security with protecting Constitutional freedoms

YESIn the movie Up in the Air, the character played by George Clooney declares that he follows Asian travelers in airport security lines: "They pack light, travel efficiently, and they got a thing for slip-on shoes. God love 'em." He is admonished: "That's racist!" He responds: "I stereotype. It's faster."

Racial and religious profiling is no joke, but it also isn't necessarily racism, discrimination, or harassment. On issues of safety, profiling means making practical threat assessments. It's time that we, as a nation, ditch political correctness and choose pragmatism, recognizing that race, religion, and ethnicity can play an important role in criminality.

Since Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden issued a "declaration of war" against the U.S. in 1996, we've experienced several attacks and near misses, including the 9/11 attacks on New York and Washington, D.C.; "shoebomber" Richard Reid; and the Christmas 2009 underwear bomber en route to Detroit. As a Muslim, I know most Muslims aren't terrorists, but sadly, the common denominator among these attackers is one thing: They're Muslim.

Profiling isn't just about Muslims, however. Depending on the situation, it might make sense to focus on Colombian gangsters carrying drugs or white supremacists targeting black churches. Profiling can be legal and rational. The Justice Department says that to prevent "catastrophic events" like airliner attacks, law-enforcement officials and airport screeners "may consider race, ethnicity, alienage*, and other relevant factors." What it comes down to is that profiling can be one of our best defenses against the alternative: catastrophe.

Asra Q. Nomani Author, Standing Alone: An American Woman's Struggle for the Soul of Islam

NOThe issue of profiling is part of the ongoing national discussion about how to balance liberty and security in the post-9/11 era. First and foremost, racial and religious profiling is inconsistent with America's core constitutional principles of equality and fairness.

Despite the threats of crime and terrorism, we must not compromise on what we cherish and celebrate—the rule of law. Under American law, every person is innocent until proven guilty. When officials use profiling, they are indirectly blaming entire communities because a few among them have committed horrible crimes. Not only is that wrong, but it's also a waste of law-enforcement resources.

It's not just American Muslims who are affected by this. African-Americans have long complained that they are targeted for traffic stops in certain neighborhoods—that they are, in effect, suspects simply because of their race.

What's more, profiling isn't even effective. Among those who study this topic, there is a near-consensus that profiling is often counterproductive: Over the long term, it alienates entire communities whose cooperation is essential to the gathering of useful intelligence for crime fighting and counterterrorism. Take the example of Muslim Americans: Law enforcement officers urgently need their help in ferreting out threats, but that cooperation is less likely when law-abiding Muslims feel like they are all targets of suspicion.

No religious community or race should be made to feel targeted by law enforcement or alienated from the broader community. Though the threat of terrorism plays on our fears, profiling has no place in America.

Hassan Abbas Professor, School of International and Public Affairs, Columbia University

(The New York Times Upfront, Vol. 143, April 18, 2011)

Is Outsourcing Good for the U.S. Economy? In a globalized economy, many jobs once done in the U.S. are now "outsourced" to other countries

YESOutsourcing—sending manufacturing or services work abroad when it can be done there more cheaply—can be a tough sell in the best of times. It's even more of a challenge when jobs in the U.S. are already hard to find, and it's painful to think of precious jobs being shipped overseas. If only we kept the work at home, one might think, we could make a dent in unemployment.

There are at least two problems with such reasoning. First, many American jobs are connected to exporting. This is part of the premise of President Obama's goal of doubling U.S. exports over the next five years. The U.S. is still a great place to build large passenger aircraft, make sophisticated machine tools, or design computer software. It's the world's third-biggest exporter (behind China and Germany).

But the U.S. can be an expensive place to make T-shirts or assemble electronics. If the U.S. were to turn away from free trade and block outsourcing of this kind, other countries would respond by blocking the purchase of American-made goods. That would cost even more American jobs.

The other reason the link between outsourcing and jobs isn't so simple is that the money saved from outsourcing some jobs can be used to create other jobs in the U.S. A start-up company, for example, may succeed only if it can use an inexpensive foreign call center for its customer service. In that case, blocking outsourcing wouldn't keep any jobs in the U.S. Without the ability to outsource some of its work, the start-up wouldn't be able to get off the ground in the first place, and the other jobs it creates would never exist.

Some of the best goods and services come from the U.S.; others come from abroad. Outsourcing and trade give U.S. businesses and consumers access to them all.

Philip Levy American Enterprise Institute

NOOutsourcing may sound like a good deal for American businesses, but in practice it's very bad for our economy.

First, when workers lose jobs to outsourcing, they are likely to end up in new jobs with substantially lower pay, and possibly a lower quality of life.

Second, outsourcing places downward pressure on U.S. wages in general: American workers who are in competition with workers in low-wage countries will have a tougher time earning enough to buy a home, save for retirement, or pay for a child's education. In other words, wages for many U.S. workers will no longer support middle-class lives.

Third, outsourcing reduces the job choices for Americans, and we are losing a great deal of potential know-how as a result. Fewer young people are seeking training in certain technical and skilled-manufacturing careers because they see how many of those jobs are moving overseas.

Fourth, outsourcing has increased our nation's trade deficit, which is the gap between how much more we import than we export. Trade deficits mean that the U.S. is, in effect, buying more than it's selling, so we have to borrow to cover the difference, just like any other debt.

Finally, outsourcing is not necessarily a good thing for businesses that do it. Separating innovation and production is inefficient. Shipping costs are rising. It is easier to control inventories and product quality when production is closer to home.

Outsourcing is not inevitable. With a strategy to encourage manufacturing in the U.S., we can succeed: If we reduce the incentives to outsource by changing tax and trade policies, we will keep more jobs in America.

Scott Paul Alliance for American Manufacturing

(The New York Times Upfront, Vol. 143, March 14, 2011)

Have Youth Sports Become Too Intense? The time and energy youth sports require—along with injuries are on the rise

YESIt's not just adults who think youth sports have become too intense in recent years. A lot of kids think so too.

In 2006, the Minnesota Youth Soccer Association polled young players about behavior they had observed at sports games. Specifically, kids were asked about how the adults—parents, coaches, and fans—were behaving. More than a third said they had been yelled at or teased by a fan; 15 percent said their parents get angry when they play poorly.

When Sports Illustrated for Kids asked similar questions in 2001, the feedback was no less disturbing: 74 percent of the kids surveyed said they had witnessed out-of-control adults at their games.

This sort of behavior is taking an emotional toll. Researchers at Michigan State University have studied the attrition rates among youth athletes: 70 percent drop out by age 13. Some just decide they like piano or Justin Bieber more. But many told researchers that sports weren't much fun.

There are also physical risks when sports become too intense. Half of all sports injuries among kids each year are caused by simple overuse, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics. These injuries—stress fractures, ruptured ligaments, and growth-plate injuries* — can be quite serious, and many can cause lifelong problems. They're all avoidable with rest and moderation.

I know more than I'd like to about injuries that happen when youth sports become too intense. When my son was 18, he ruptured an elbow ligament while pitching for his high school baseball team. At the time, he was playing for three different baseball teams in three different seasons. I wish I'd realized then how excessive that was.

Mark Hyman, author Until It Hurts: America's Obsession With Youth Sports

NOThose who argue that youth sports are too intense point mostly to two factors: the amount of time they require and the pressure that they place on young athletes. These are the very qualities, however, that make youth sports so valuable to those who participate.

Youth sports today are indeed a big investment: The time, money, and energy required are tremendous. But reward always requires investment. The principle is the same whether we're talking about the monetary rewards that come with financial investments or the intrinsic rewards that come from investing in youth sports.

Young athletes who spend countless hours training at their sport learn the value of discipline and commitment. There is simply no way other than tireless repetition to learn the skills necessary to succeed in competitive athletics. When an athlete performs well as a result of this kind of disciplined training, he or she develops genuine self-confidence.

With parents shouting from the sidelines and college scouts watching every play, high-level competitions are packed with pressure. But when managed well, this pressure can bring out the best in young athletes.

To successfully compete in this environment, young athletes must develop mechanisms for blocking out distractions and concentrating only on the details relevant to performance. Then the pressure of all the eyes looking on can be harnessed as motivation to compete harder and perform better. Instead of being held back by the pressure, young athletes learn to thrive under pressure.

In the soccer club I work for, I've seen countless kids achieve their potential as a result of all their hard work. It's the intensity that makes youth sports so valuable. tk

Nathan Pitcock Chicago Magic Soccer Club

*Growth plates are areas of growing tissue at the ends of children's leg and arm bones. They are the weakest part of a young person's skeleton.

(The New York Times Upfront, Vol. 143, February 21, 2011)

Is Google Making Us Stupid?

YESWho doesn't love Google? In the blink of an eye, the search engine delivers useful information about pretty much any subject imaginable. I use it all the time, and I'm guessing you do too.

But I worry about what Google is doing to our brains. What really makes us intelligent isn't our ability to find lots of information quickly. It's our ability to think deeply about that information. And deep thinking, brain scientists have discovered, happens only when our minds are calm and attentive. The greater our concentration, the richer our thoughts.

If we're distracted, we understand less, remember less, and learn less.

That's the problem with Google—and with the Internet in general. When we use our computers and our cellphones all the time, we're always distracted.

The Net bombards us with messages and other bits of data, and every one of those interruptions breaks our train of thought. We end up scatterbrained. The fact is, you'll never think deeply if you're always Googling, texting, and surfing.

Google doesn't want us to slow down. The faster we zip across the Web, clicking links and skimming words and pictures, the more ads Google is able to show us and the more money it makes. So even as Google is giving us all that useful information, it's also encouraging us to think superficially. It's making us shallow.

If you're really interested in developing your mind, you should turn off your computer and your cellphone—and start thinking. Really thinking. You can Google all the facts you want, but you'll never Google your way to brilliance.

Nicholas Carr, Author The Shallows: What the Internet Is Doing to Our Brains

NOAny new information technology has both advocates and critics. More than 2,000 years ago, the classical Greek philosopher Socrates complained that the new technology of writing "will create forgetfulness in the learners' souls because they will not use their memories."

Today, Google is the new technology. The Internet contains the world's best writing, images, and ideas; Google lets us find the relevant pieces instantly.

Suppose I'm interested in the guidance computers on Apollo spacecraft in the 1960s. My local library has no books on that specific subject—just 18 books about the Apollo missions in general. I could hunt through those or turn to Google, which returns 45,000 pages, including a definitive encyclopedia article and instructions for building a unit.

Just as a car allows us to move faster and a telescope lets us see farther, access to the Internet's information lets us think better and faster. By considering a wide range of information, we can arrive at more creative and informed solutions. Internet users are more likely to be exposed to a diversity of ideas. In politics, for example, they are likely to see ideas from left and right, and see how news is reported in other countries.

There's no doubt the Internet can create distractions. But 81 percent of experts polled by the Pew Internet Research Project say the opportunities outweigh the distractions.

Socrates was wrong to fear the coming of the written word: Writing has improved our law, science, arts, culture, and our memory. When the history of our current age is written, it will say that Google has made us smarter—both individually and collectively—because we have ready and free access to information.

Peter Norvig, Director of Research Google Inc.

(The New York Times Upfront, Vol. 143, October 4, 2010)

Should Candy and Soda Be Banned from Schools? President Obama has proposed removing high-calorie drinks and snacks from school vending machines

YESRemoving unhealthy high-calorie snacks and drinks from schools is an important step toward tackling the nation's childhood obesity epidemic.

About a third of American children are overweight or obese. Addressing that problem requires changing what kids eat in school, where many kids consume half of their daily calories.

Reforming our school meals program will ensure that all foods served in schools are healthy and nutritious. By setting standards for the food that is served and sold in cafeterias, we can make sure our children have the opportunity for a healthy start in life.

The sale of unhealthy high-calorie snacks and drinks in school vending machines undermines these efforts to ensure access to healthy and nutritious food in schools. But it doesn't mean the end of vending machines in schools; it means stocking them with more nutritious offerings to make healthy choices available to students.

Why is this something the government needs to get involved in? Because the potential impact is enormous. Children who are obese can face lifelong struggles with their weight: 80 percent of teenagers who are obese remain obese as adults. That increases their risk of suffering from certain cancers and chronic diseases like diabetes, heart disease, asthma, and high blood pressure.

Rebuilding and revitalizing America requires the next generation to be the healthiest and best educated in our history. We won't succeed if our school environments and our students aren't healthy. If we fail to act, today's children may be the first generation to have shorter life expectancies than their parents.

Tom Vilsack U.S. Secretary of Agriculture

NOIt's not the government's job to make decisions about what we eat and where we eat it. That's why it's a bad idea to ban soda and candy from schools.

The problem with government intervention in this area is that it erodes personal responsibility rather than encouraging it.

When the government gets involved in forcing kids to change their diet—in this case by banning soda and candy in schools—it undermines students' ability to learn how to make healthy decisions for themselves.

As anyone who has tried to lose weight is likely to tell you, going "cold turkey" and avoiding tempting foods is setting yourself up for failure, and that's exactly what banning particular foods will do. Researchers call this the "forbidden fruit theory," because we often crave things we're not allowed to have.

So then why is there so much talk about banning soda and candy from schools? Because when faced with a problem as complicated as our nation's childhood obesity epidemic, it's easier to simply assign blame to sugary drinks and snacks, rather than tackling the various roots of the problem.

It is true that soda and candy are high in calories, but in fact, there isn't any evidence that either directly causes obesity. Why then should soda and candy be singled out from the hundreds of high-calorie and high-fat foods, and banned from schools?

Instead of banning particular foods and drinks, schools should focus on teaching students to lead active, healthy lives—offering classes on healthy cooking, or gym classes that make it fun to be active. Removing unhealthy choices is no way to teach students how to make healthy ones.

J. Justin Wilson Center for Consumer Freedom

(The New York Times Upfront, Vol. 142, May 10, 2010)

Do School Libraries Still Need Books? In an era of Internet research and downloadable books, some educators question the need for printed collections

YESAn online library cannot replace the unique collection of resources that I—like many school librarians—have built over a period of years to serve the specific needs of my students, faculty, and the school's curriculum.

One of my primary responsibilities as a librarian is to teach information-literacy skills—including defining research questions, selecting and evaluating sources, avoiding plagiarism, and documenting sources. In my experience, this works best face-to-face with students. That personal interaction is supported by the electronic availability of materials but is not replaced by it.

Librarians also encourage reading, which is crucial to student success. Focused, engaged reading is more likely to occur with printed books than with online material.

Today's students, digital natives all, shouldn't miss out on the unique pleasure of getting lost in a physical book. Research shows that the brain functions differently when reading online versus reading a book, and different formats complement different learning styles. Books help develop longer attention spans, the ability to concentrate, and the skill of engaging with a complex issue or idea for an uninterrupted period of time.

Unlike an e-reader or a laptop, which may provide access to many books but is limited to a single user, a printed book is a relatively inexpensive information-delivery system that is not dependent on equipment, power, or bandwidth for its use.

One of the beauties of libraries is that we keep up with new technologies, but we also hold on to the old things that work well. We don't have to choose between technology and printed books, and we shouldn't.

Liz Gray, Library Director Dana Hall School, Wellesley, Mass.

NOTraditional libraries must be reimagined to remain vital and better reflect the way students learn and conduct research today. That's why Cushing Academy decided last year to give away most of our 20,000 print books and transform our library into a digital learning center.

A small collection of printed books no longer supports the type of research required by a 21st-century curriculum. We wanted to create a library that reflects and fosters the reality of how students do research—a library that goes beyond stacks and stacks of underutilized books.

Cushing's library can now deliver thousands of Web-based electronic books and authoritative database content directly to our students' laptops. The library also encourages offline reading by providing immediate access to hundreds of thousands of downloadable electronic books delivered to our nearly 200 electronic readers.

Our library is now the most used space on campus, with collaborative learning areas, screens for data feeds from research sites, and more reference and circulation stations for our librarians. It has become a hub where students and faculty gather, learn, and explore together.

Cushing Academy today is awash with books in all formats. It is immaterial to us whether students read Chaucer and Shakespeare in print or electronically. In fact, Cushing students are checking out more books than before, making extensive use of e-readers in our library collection. I hope Cushing's success will inspire other schools to think about new approaches to education in this century.

James Tracy, Headmaster Cushing Academy, Ashburnham, Mass.

(The New York Times Upfront, Vol. 142, April 19, 2010)