A new optional patch for Dearborn Heights police uniforms has sparked both praise and controversy. The patch, featuring "DEARBORN HEIGHTS" and "POLICE" in English and Arabic, aims to celebrate the city’s diverse community. But is this a genuine nod to unity or a step toward divisive cultural pandering?
Fox News reported that the Dearborn Heights Police Department announced a new optional uniform patch designed by Officer Emily Murdoch to honor the city’s significant Arabic-speaking population.
This move, shared via a Facebook post, allows officers to wear the bilingual patch voluntarily. It’s a gesture meant to reflect the community’s cultural mosaic, but not everyone sees it as a win.
“The Dearborn Heights Police Department is proud to share a new optional patch that our officers may wear as part of their uniform,” the department stated.
Sounds noble, but the optional nature of the patch raises questions about its necessity. If unity is the goal, why not a universal design that doesn’t single out one group?
Officer Emily Murdoch crafted the patch to symbolize respect for Dearborn Heights’ Arabic-speaking residents. The department claims it showcases its commitment to serving all community members. Yet, highlighting one language over others risks alienating those who don’t speak Arabic.
“This patch was created by Officer Emily Murdoch, who designed it to reflect and honor the diversity of our community - especially the many residents of Arabic descent who call Dearborn Heights home,” the department’s Facebook post read.
It’s a lofty sentiment, but diversity doesn’t always mean division into linguistic camps. A patch with just English might have sufficed for a city in America.
The bilingual design includes “DEARBORN HEIGHTS” and “POLICE” in both English and Arabic, a choice meant to foster inclusivity. But inclusivity for whom? The focus on Arabic feels like a selective embrace that could sideline other cultural groups in the city.
The patch announcement didn’t go unnoticed, catching the eye of Rep. Randy Fine, a Florida Republican who won a special election to the U.S. House in 2025.
Fine commented on an X post about the patch, stirring the pot with a sharp take. His reaction underscores the broader cultural debates swirling around such initiatives.
“They said their goal was to bring Sharia law to America. You should’ve believed them. Pray for Michigan,” Fine posted on X. His inflammatory leap from a patch to sharia law is a stretch, misrepresenting the department’s intent. Still, his comment taps into real concerns about cultural shifts that feel forced.
The X post Fine responded to failed to mention that the patch is optional, fueling his heated rhetoric. Misinformation like this thrives in echo chambers, and the omission didn’t help clarify the situation. It’s a reminder that context matters when emotions run high.
The Dearborn Heights Police Department insists the patch reflects their service to all residents. “Our officers proudly serve all members of our community, and this new design is another way we continue to celebrate the rich cultures that make our city unique,” they said. But celebrating one culture so prominently risks tipping the scales toward favoritism.
The optional nature of the patch is a small saving grace. Officers can choose whether to wear it, avoiding a mandate that could feel like a progressive agenda being shoved down their throats. Still, the choice itself might create unnecessary division among the ranks.
Dearborn Heights’ Arabic-speaking community is significant, and the department’s gesture isn’t without merit. Acknowledging a key demographic could build trust, especially in a city with a rich Middle Eastern heritage. But good intentions don’t always mean good outcomes.
The patch’s bilingual design is a bold statement, but it’s worth asking: Does it solve any real problems? Community policing thrives on trust, not symbolic gestures that might confuse or polarize. A simpler approach—like community outreach—might have spoken louder than a patch.
Rep. Fine’s comment, while overblown, reflects a broader conservative unease with policies that seem to prioritize specific groups. His “sharia law” jab is hyperbolic, but it resonates with those wary of creeping cultural concessions. The reaction, though misguided, highlights a real tension.
