Police chief in tiny Southern town using polygraphs to screen for racism
Feb. 13, 2013 photo shows Coopertown, Tenn., Police Chief Shane Sullivan at Coopertown City Hall. The department was disbanded for several months last year after an officer was recorded using a racial slur to describe a black motorist. Sullivan, hired in Nov. 2012, is counting on using a lie-detector test to keep racists off his tiny police force. / AP
COOPERTOWN, Tenn. A police chief hired to rebuild a tiny Tennessee department dismantled as a result of scandal is using a lie-detector test to keep racists off his force.
Coopertown Police Chief Shane Sullivan took over the department in November, becoming the 11th chief in as many years. He was hired on the heels of a series of police scandals that for a few months left Coopertown with no police at all. Years before that, a mayor was voted out of office after the local prosecutor accused him of racism and running a notorious speed trap.
Law enforcement experts say Sullivan's polygraph approach is unusual, though some departments use the devices for other purposes during the application process. Others try to root out bias in other ways. One polygraph expert warned that lie detectors can't accurately predict racism for reasons that include people's inability to recognize their own racism.
Sullivan said he doubts racists will even apply for the force if they know about the tests.
"I think the polygraph will definitely keep these people from applying," the 39-year-old chief said.
And he believes the policy is working, because he says it's already discouraged some applicants. "I've told a couple of ones about the polygraph who have not called me back."
Before Sullivan's hiring, the sheriff's department had overseen law enforcement in the town 30 miles northwest of Nashville while the department was temporarily disbanded.
First, the only full-time patrolman was fired over a road rage incident. Then the reserve officer was dismissed after a dashboard camera captured him using a racial slur to describe a black motorist. The dash cam video was later aired in the media. Soon after that, the police chief quit.
Coopertown Mayor Sam Childs said the chief resigned because of the "predatory media."
The rural community of about 4,000 people, which is 95 percent white, earned a reputation as a notorious speed trap, with about a third of its revenue coming from speeding tickets handed out by city police during the former mayor's tenure. In 2006, the National Motorists Association said Coopertown had one of the most "blatant examples of speed traps in the country." It stopped after a prosecutor filed a petition against the mayor in 2006. Its 25 squares miles encompass significant stretches of Interstate 24 and another highway that drivers use to cut through to Interstate 65.
In 2006, the county prosecutor asked a court to oust then-Mayor Danny Crosby on allegations he was running a speed trap and ordering police to target Hispanics, out-of-towners and soldiers from nearby Fort Campbell, Ky., for traffic tickets.
Although an appellate court agreed with a lower court's finding that Crosby's conduct and statements were strongly suggestive of "bigotry, sexism or utter foolishness," it refused to remove him. Crosby was later voted out of office and the speed trap is gone.
One lifelong resident said he's fed up with the city government and the police department making the town look bad.
"It's put a black eye on the city," Wayne Brown said of Coopertown's controversies. Brown, a mechanic and football coach, said he thinks there should be no city government or police department because they aren't providing any services.
"Other than writing speeding tickets, they don't do anything for us." Brown said of the department.
The new chief intends for his lie detector idea to help clean up the Coopertown's image. Candidates are required to answer whether they have ever committed a hate crime or a race-based crime.
"It doesn't ask if you've ever made a racist remark or slur," the chief said. Nor does the test ask people if they are prejudiced against any ethnic or religious minority.
Sullivan, who has taken the lie detector test himself, said he's hoping to establish a professional police department that can eventually provide 24-hour service seven days a week. Right now, he doesn't have the staff to police the town around the clock and leaves those duties up to the sheriff's office. He's already hired two police officers, both of whom have passed the polygraph, and he wants to add more. The department's budget is about $250,000 this fiscal year, Sullivan said, and the chief makes $41,000.
Bob Peters, a spokesman for the American Polygraph Association, said asking about factual matters is a better approach than using subjective questions about prejudice or racism. He says a polygraph can't accurately predict whether someone is racist.
"There might be people whom I might think have racist attitudes but they might not think so," said Peters, whose association has established best practices for use of the polygraph.
Peters says the new chief is using the best approach, and some voters are applauding him.
"I am very pleased with Chief Sullivan and the effort he is making to create a sound and secure police department for Coopertown," said Valorie Buck, chairwoman of the Coopertown Community Development Committee.
Malik Aziz, national chairman of the National Black Police Association, said the best way to keep bigots from being cops is through extensive background checks.
It's not unusual for police departments to use polygraphs on people before letting them join the force. Police applicants can be asked about past drug use or whether they have been involved in criminal activity.
"I haven't heard of any agency using a polygraph specifically geared toward eliminating racists from the application process," he said.
Sullivan says he's also using background checks to probe the racism issue.
The Metropolitan Nashville Police Department requires job candidates to undergo a voice stress test during the interviewing process, department spokeswoman Kristin Mumford said. Would-be officers are asked about bias during the test.
Voice stress tests are similar to polygraph tests, but instead of measuring heart rate and blood pressure, they detect changes in an applicant's voice pattern.
The department, she said, also uses an extensive background check and psychologically evaluates its job candidates.
"Polygraphs in and of themselves have a lot of problems," Hedy Weinberg, executive director of the ACLU of Tennessee, said.
Still, Weinberg commended the chief for the effort to bar racist applicants. But she thinks the best way for police departments to be accountable is by making sure citizens have their complaints of unfair treatment investigated.
Carolyn Murray, a professor of psychology at the University of California Riverside, supports other types of testing to detect bias, such as ones that use images of different racial groups and gauge reaction time when they are described as either "good" or "bad." Still, she applauded Sullivan's approach.
"If he's making this effort, he's making the biggest effort I've seen to date," Murray said. "You're not going to get everybody, but you will be able to stop a few people who would have been able to do a lot of damage to citizens."
Popular on CBSNews.com
- TWA Flight 800 gets another look 17 years later 101 Comments
- America's endangered historic places 11 Photos
- Reporter Michael Hastings dies at 33
- FBI: No sign of Jimmy Hoffa's body in Detroit suburb
- Serena Williams sorry for "what I supposedly said" on rape
- Taliban: We killed 4 U.S. troops at Afghan air base
- Scientists say shipwreck timber in Lake Michigan centuries old
- TWA Flight 800 disaster - a look back 19 Photos
At least to some degree.
The difference is in the expression of their racism. Some folks don't express it at all. Some live it in their daily lives. As for the seemingly outrageous statement that everyone is a racist, I offer scientific proof of this.
Mankind evolved in tribes. These tribes had individuals who looked like them, sounded like them, lived like them, worked like them, believed like them. Friction arose every time one tribe met another. Warfare between tribes was common, but it was generally isolated. The only thing civilization did for mankind's tribal nature was provide a means to organize into larger armies to defend tribal turf.
We had hundreds of thousands of years evolving in and using tribes to survive. We've only had a paltry few thousands of years to adjust to being forced to live side by side with people we don't see as being part of "our" tribe. (Whichever tribe you belong to.) Because of this, mankind is inherently tribal in nature and anything they see outside of their tribe is automatically, instinctively, distrusted. And one of the most evident things screaming that another person isn't part of YOUR tribe is the way they look. Someone of a different race can not help but stand out as proof that they are not of your tribe.
Even children notice the difference.
The more one stays in and listens to their own tribe (cultural, social, political, religious), the more pronounced their reaction to non-tribal individuals.
This is why people so strongly identify with others. They see a "link" be it political ideology, religious beliefs, race, language, or whatever else sparks that similarity. Once that link is there, a "tribe" is created. A cooperative group, if you will. And those not sharing that link are seen differently - whether good or bad. ANYTHING seen differently is eventually distrusted and in some way excluded from the tribe. Hundreds of thousands of years of successful survival in tribes created this instinct. Intelligence can, to some degree, control it, but it's always there.
So in the end, everyone is, to some degree, racist. Our evolution put in us instincts to not trust those outside of our tribes. The trick is to see those who are around us as being IN our tribes. Then their appearances, different as they are, become less a matter of race than of simply their uniqueness as an individual. Not everyone looks the same. Extending that to race, in a tribe, is possible provided the tribal bond is strong enough. But even then, the distrust is going to remain at SOME level because of our evolutionary past where those in our tribe all looked, sounded and mostly acted like we do.
And by "we" I mean members of our own tribe, whichever tribe you happen to belong to.
So racism is HUMAN NATURE. It takes a very unique person to not notice differences, even subconsciously, and treat everyone they meet the same. And of the hundreds of thousands of people I've met in my life, when push comes to shove, I have never met anyone would could.
IMHO, it's a sorely under-studied (or under-considered) factor in human relations - especially now that we have the ability to communicate on a global scale one on one.
A racist is someone who believes his race is superior to race of someone else.
Tribe? What tribe.That's why your stuck with your bigotry.(Fear and Ignorance)
Mankind has been 'enlightened',and some take the knowledge.
There are no tribes,no races,only the 'Human Race'.
Some of us believe in a God who says He has no concern about someone's outward appearance,meaning - Get with the Program.
Most racists do not believe they are being racist and most bigots who are prejudiced against "other" for whatever reason don't see their bias.
@SNOOPKKK That quote you cited is perhaps the stupidest thing I have read all week. The most profound racists among us are the people you used to see on the Fox "News" website's comments section before it was shutdown. They're the ones who openly use the N-word in a derogatory context, compare African Americans to monkeys and other non-human primates, get swastikas tattooed on their foreheads, hang Confederate flags on their windows, insist that President Obama MUST have been born in Kenya, and the list goes on.
Yes, there are plenty of false racism accusations out there just as there are many false rape accusations. But to say that, because there are some false claims, the most profound rapists are "those who cry rape," would be patently absurd and utterly reprehensible.
Bill White's comment was equally as disgusting and ignorant. Racism against minorities is alive and well. It's just been swept under the rug as each generation finds it less and less palatable. If you're one of those idiots who think that white people are now the primary targets of racism, then I truly pity you.
Dont apply.
Why do you only want to test the African Americans?