The public's shock and grief in the wake of the Sept. 11 terror attacks produced profoundly conflicted survey results on racial profiling - the officially improper but widely practiced technique of identifying potential suspects by their race. The public's conflicted feelings on this issue have not subsided and the best evidence of this is that the public rejects profiling in some cases but not in others. In January 2002, just a few months after the Sept. 11 attacks, we found relatively few Americans rejected the racial profiling of Middle Easterners as potential terrorists. More than two-thirds said profiling of Middle Easterners was "understandable, but you wish it didn't happen." Yet in the same survey half said there's "no excuse" for the racial profiling of African Americans. Even a majority of blacks accept this view of profiling as a regrettable but not intolerable part of the war on terrorism. Blacks were far more likely than whites to say there's "no excuse" for profiling Middle Easterners, yet nearly six in 10 blacks said such profiling is "understandable." Surveys immediately after the Sept. 11 attacks found majorities of Americans were willing to take harsh measures to fight terrorism even if it meant giving up some civil liberties. Overall, recent surveys show this attitude has faded - though not always when it comes to measures targeting Middle Easterners. For instance, there has been very little change in the number that says they favor special security checks for Arabs (58 percent in 2001 compared to 53 in 2005). This topic is covered in more detail in our special edition on Terrorism.)