Read the full article.

Read the full article.

Every aspect of what we do is monitored, analyzed and critiqued. As front-line troops we don’t always have the luxury of hindsight enjoyed by the media, for instance, with some news outlets utilizing that aspect more than others. But if the criticism of our work helps improve our crime-fighting capabilities, then it is well worth taking a few raps on the knuckles.

Another facet of policing is the statistics. As police officers we generate mountains of data. Call it a number-cruncher’s dream. The statistics are very useful in our work. They tell us, for instance, where the hotbeds of crime are in this city, enabling us to deploy the troops in an efficient manner. They also help us to inform the public on how we are dealing with crime. In the end, it’s the public who benefits.

But as every street copper knows, statistics don’t tell the full story.

Using only numbers to make a point can be dangerous and misleading. Numbers can be massaged, taken out of context and even if the counting is technically accurate, the conclusion can be just plain wrong.

The Star claims to be the voice of the city, but I think it’s singing off-key.

The city’s biggest paper has implied, suggested, and condemned the service as racist because of some number crunching it did in a recent series of articles. To use its own words: “Black people are more likely to be stopped by the police than white people.” It’s not a new tactic by the newspaper. Several years ago it tried much the same approach, blasting our membership as racist based on statistics. Back then the story raised a few eyebrows. This time around, the article by reporter Jim Rankin was largely ignored. The newspaper’s attack against our membership has been described by some as a “moronic crusade” against the service. Even its colleagues in the media have grown weary of its constant haranguing of us, as several have said to me.

I prefer to take a less confrontational approach.

I tend to think of senior Toronto Star management types as “limousine liberals,” good folk but misguided, whose only brush with the darker side of society is the panhandler who bumps into in the side of their Cadillac when it’s stopped at a red light on the drive in from Rosedale.

It’s a sad fact of life that there’s more crime in Regent Park than in Leaside. I know that because I worked the streets of the Park for years. I wish it weren’t so, but that is life. A police officer who investigates incidents in the Park may have to interview more people of a certain minority group than other groups. Should that officer then go to Leaside, for instance, to “even out” the numbers by interviewing – using the Star's words – “white people” to avoid making it seem like we’re picking on – in the Star’s words – “black people?” Of course not. He or she has to do his or her job. If that skews the numbers, then so be it. But that doesn’t make the officer a racist, as suggested by the Star. The number count, even if technically accurate, is conveying a false and very misleading picture of the job that we are proud to do, and do well.

When you’re trying to get a message across, it’s always better to give an example, so I thought of one of my own as I read the Star’s recent front-page story. Why not look at the media? Let’s do some number crunching on the Toronto Star or a change. Let’s look at its hiring practises. Has that ever been done before? I don’t think so.

Newspaper types love to criticize, but I know from my dealings with the press that they can be incredibly thin-skinned themselves. For my research on hiring practices at the Star, I relied on the Internet, taking my data from material provided free by the Star on its websites and the newspaper itself - not scientific, but I just wanted to see how they looked. Quite frankly, I was surprised – shocked! – at what that image appeared to say about the paper.

The Star has a list of speakers that it touts on its pages, staff members who will speak to the public about the city they cover. Call them “the face” of the Toronto Star. By my count, seventy-eight. The paper has also advertised its team covering the recent Vancouver Olympics. Another eighteen. Then there is the Star’s editorial board, along with its board of directors, another twenty-five. Then there’s the senior staff in the newsroom, from the managing editor to the city editor and others who decide on the content of the paper – a further dozen, according to its websites. That makes a total of 133 people – and I apologize if I missed anyone.

After compiling that list of names and pictures from the Star’s websites, I then counted – again using the paper’s own words – “the number of black people compared to white people.” As I said, the results of my observations were quite shocking, quite disturbing. Out of the 133 people whom the Star touted on its website and newspaper ads as the leaders of its paper, only two were black (its words).

That’s right, just two people. Two out of one hundred and thirty-three.

The word “token” came to mind as I double-checked my numbers. That’s a percentage of 1.5. A number so small, it barely registers. Call it a hiccup on the road to racial equality.

That’s an embarrassing number compared to the TPS where 17.8 per cent of our officers are visible minorities. If I were a Toronto Star management type reading this, I would be highly embarrassed, blushing in the back seat of my Cadillac as my chauffeur hurried past Regent Park on my way to the Star.

Can this be right? So then what about the number of visible minorities at the Star? Surely that number would be higher, perhaps even rivalling the percentage of my own service, which is 17.8 per cent. I went back and did another head count. And again, I was shocked. Here’s the breakdown:

• The Star’s board of directors has 13 members, with one visible minority
• The Star’s editorial board, including cartoonists, has roughly a dozen people – again, just one a visible minority
• The Star’s Olympic team of reporters had 18 people, with just one a visible minority
• The Star’s management team in the newsroom has a dozen people – with zip visible minorities

At this point of my research I thought of stopping because I felt like I was just “piling on,” to use a football term, but I continued with it, just as the Star would do.

• The Star’s prestigious Speakers’ Bureau has 78 people, 10 of whom are visible minorities, including blacks (its words)

By my math, that’s 13 people out of 133 who are members of a visible minority, roughly 9.7 per cent in high-prestige positions at Canada’s biggest newspaper. One would think that the country’s leading paper would have better numbers than that. Maybe that’s why they’re always on the attack. As the saying goes, the best defence is a good offence. Do as I say, but not as I do. The Star does not seem to practise what it preaches.

Its numbers – 9.7 per cent visible minorities and 1.5 per cent black minority (their words) – are nowhere near our numbers. Not by a country mile.

In some divisions of Toronto, nearly 30 per cent of our primary response officers, who deal with the public on a daily basis, are members of a visible minority, a far cry from the Star’s 9.7 per cent. Overall in Toronto, the number of officers who are members of a visible minority are 17.8 per cent. And that is a percentage, I am proud to say, that is growing daily. Can the Star say the same? Perhaps that is a question it might like to answer.

So does all of this analysis mean the Star is racist? Does the paper discriminate against blacks (its words)? With just two blacks (its words) out of 133 in prestigious jobs at the country’s biggest paper, one has to wonder. There are some who might say that I would be justified in coming to that conclusion based on my own statistical review and observations. The Star might have a valid explanation as to why – using its words – mainly “white people” are running the paper, and representing it in the community, according to the numbers that are accessible from its websites and pages of its newspaper. Somebody should ask the Star that question. We have all sorts of people scrutinizing us. Does nobody watch the watchers?

My point is this: It’s dangerous to make definitive statements based solely on statistics, as the Star has done. Assessing the Star the way it has analyzed us could be wrong. Misleading. But one issue is clear.

Perhaps it’s time for the Star to look inward, at its own house first, before throwing stones at others and proclaiming from on high that our service is racist. As a liberal-minded newspaper it’s a task the Star might want to undertake.

And if they need any help, they can always come to our police service, our membership – Toronto’s finest – for suggestions. After all, we are among the leaders in this country for hiring people from all backgrounds, regardless of race, creed or colour. Perhaps one day the Star will be able to make the same pronouncement. I hope so.

I thank Doug Corrigan, Vice President, and Rob Correa and Dan Ross, Directors, Uniform Field Services, for relinquishing their normal monthly editorial space so that I could provide the membership with the preceding article.