e shall have true equality only when the following social reality has come about: It shall be true that a black yells racism only to have other blacks roundly call the person on her or his credibility, because doing so is warranted by the circumstances.  Or, it shall be true that a white person says something utterly bigoted and, before the minorities offended have even had a chance to express their outrage, whites themselves have made the mutterer of those bigoted words the object of their unrestrained disapprobation.  We shall have racial equality only when blind loyalty along racial lines or grand-standing for the media no longer animates our behavior in matters of injustice involving more than one ethnic group.  By this measure, then, we yet have a long ways to go.  This is poignant truth is brought out by the rape charge against the 3 members of the Duke University lacrosse team and the quite tasteless remarks by Don Imus.  As I proceed with my assessment, I shall no doubt say something to surprise (read: offend) everyone.  There are lots of sharp turns in what follows.

To begin, I hold a very simple view: For any ethnic group or sex or gender or whatever, not all of its members are right and not all of them are wrong.  Being a member of this or that ethnic group should not carry a presumption in this regard one way or the other.  Only the circumstances surrounding matters can create a presumption one way or the other, and such circumstances can sometimes include the person’s character as well. 

I understand, all too well, the legacy of racism that has plagued the United States.  But that legacy, as deplorable as it is, should not be an excuse to create another malicious legacy, namely the legacy of false accusations against whites.  Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are the grand-marshals of this second legacy.  Let a charge of racism be made that gains publicity and one can count on Sharpton and Jackson to show up in support of the accuser, even though each is woefully uninformed about the situation. 

In the case of the woman who accused the three white lacrosse players of rape, Jackson pledged, within days of her accusation, to pay for her college education.  This he did, though, he knew absolutely nothing about her credibility.  Nothing at all.  And there is the famous Tawana Brawley case where a 15 year old black female teenager falsely accused several white men of raping her.  We know beyond a shadow of a doubt that she was lying.  And things were suspicious from the outset.  But that sort of thing did not bother Al Sharpton; and to this day he seems to have not an ounce of regret for the damage that he did to the lives of those white men. 

Behold the formation of a different kind of legacy.  It might seem to some that this is none other than a proper form of comeuppance for the legacy of racism.  Alas, fighting wrong with wrong never makes for a better world.  No, doing so serves only to cheapen justice and thus to weaken its hold upon our lives, with the result being that we are all made worse off. 

Blacks were a little too eager to prosecute the three lacrosse players from Duke University. 

“Nappy-headed hoes” are the words that came out of the mouth of Don Imus during his radio program in reference the black women on the women basketball team from Rutgers.  I understand, of course, that being provocative is part of Imus’s shtick.  That is what he does.  Indeed, I am, myself, quite the provocateur in the classroom.  Yet, even for a masterful provocateur some things are beyond the pale. 

Imus’s remarks were entirely out of place for several reasons.  For one thing, the remarks showed a profound indifference to the contribution that athletes make to a school.  For another, the remarks were a strident form of disrespect for women and, in particular, women in the context of representing their institution.  To invoke “nappy-headed” was to add insult to injury.  It was to invoke a history between blacks and whites, especially females in both cases, that has been long and ugly.  And if only blacks can see all of this, then America has not made the progress that one might have hoped for. 

Now, the uproar over Imus’s remarks point to a very deep asymmetry in America.  Black comedians make jokes about whites all the time and whites in the audience fall all over themselves laughing.  If this is right, then there could very well be a third sign of true equality in America, namely when whites are able to make fun of blacks and blacks enjoy it.  Equality is a two-way street.  Hypocrisy, on the other hand, is not.  It is a fact about humor that it often has a double-edge sword. 

When a black comedian says “It is not Al-Quaida that worries me, but al-cracker” should whites infer that the black comedian hates or mistrusts all whites, including those whites in the audience laughing?  Presumably, this is not a hostile moment, but a moment of humorously playing with history.  We will never have true equality in America if whites cannot from time to time do precisely the same thing with respect to blacks. 

Imus has now been fired; and it is my view that the powers that be went too far in doing that.  A substantial suspension without pay coupled with some requirement of charitable work or sensitivity training would been more in order.  And in a world of true equality, this sanction would have been imposed whether blacks had raised a single voice or not. 

You will notice that I have not much accused Imus of racism.  My reason for this is that language has acquired a fluidity to it nowadays that permits people to be mean-spirited in all sorts of ways without being racist in the true sense of that term.  There is simply not the rigidity to language that there once was; and the use of words nowadays does not necessarily have all the connotations and visceral force that the use of the very same words once did.  For example, the word ‘shit’ used to have only negative connotations.  Nowadays, there is a positive way in which to use it.  Rap artists use the word “ho” all the time.  What is more, the use of the word “nigger” has made quite a come back.  Whether it means what it used to mean depends on how and when one uses it and who uses it.  But one thing is certain “What’s up my nigger?” was not a possible greeting a few decades ago. 

Racism is typically about inferiority and separation.  There is no reason to believe that Imus is committed to any of that.  This, though, is compatible with him being utterly irresponsible in what he said.  And that is precisely my view.  One does not have to be a racist or a sexist to say foolish, tasteless things about another ethnic group or even one’s own, or to say foolish things about women.  Not only that, a person’s behavior can be downright despicable, although the person is not a racist or a sexist.  The time has come for all to acknowledge this moral space.

What happened to Don Imus was not an instance of justice but an expression of pure vindictiveness—a form of lynching on the part of blacks—an exercise of raw hostile power.  Blacks are ignoring an ever so simple truth forged by moral and social progress, namely this: The legacy of racism in American does not entail that every significant mistake made by a white regarding matters of race stems from the bowels of racist sentiment.  50 or 100 years ago, it would have been reasonable to see any such mistake as a sign of racism, but not any more. 

Notwithstanding the truth that much moral progress remains, it is also true that much moral progress has been made.  And to deny this in the name of furthering moral progress is to in fact impede moral progress. 

The preceding claim points to why I so despise Sharpton and Jackson.  In the end, their behavior reeks of maliciousness—the malicious exploitation of the present moral force of the charge of racism.  I have seen no judiciousness or thoughtfulness or circumspection on their part with regard to those who make the charge of racism.  Most importantly, there has never been a willingness on their part to criticize those who have wrongly made the charge of racism, to chastise those who use the charge of racism as none other than a form of social lynching.  They have shown themselves to be interested in the exercise of brute social power masquerading as justice—and not justice in and of itself. 

Does it even occur to Sharpton that he did a wrong in supporting a woman who falsely accused whites of raping her?  Not in the least.  Does it even occur to Jackson that he did a wrong in supporting a woman who falsely accused whites of raping her?  Again: not in the least.  Alas, if this does not make them grand-marshals of a legacy of viciousness, then what does? 

It would seem, then, Jackson and Sharpton are ineluctably committed to the view that when it comes to advancing the cause of black people it is acceptable to be arbitrary and capricious with respect to white people.  If this is right, then the only thing that distinguishes them from white racists is the color of their skin—not the quality of their moral character.  And that is a difference without moral validity whatsoever.  Blind loyalty along racial lines is a vice and none other than a vice.  This is so whether we have blind loyalty among KKK folks or Nazis or minorities, including blacks. 

It is this truth that has been highlighted by the cases of the rape accusations against the three Duke University lacrosse players and the vicious uproar over the remarks of Don Imus.  Not to see this is to be morally blind; and moral blindness is always and invariably a most profound impediment to moral progress.