The writer is an ignoramus.
He states to not fall into the liberal white guilt, as faux shield about his own preaching that one ought to feel white guilt. Pretzel illogic and straw man assumptions abound. He himself is trying to justify his own overpaid whitey professorship.

Nailed it.
Others use there race or "the system" was built by "whitey" before I arrived, and I would be productive if it were built more around my special needs.

Interesting question, jpellone. Been questioning that one for some time. The answer is that it serves no purpose of politics to riot over it. Whites are not a minority being supported by a majority. Thus, no profit of any kind to be gained by propagandizing the act. Just my take.

That the article was written by a "left coast" faculty member explains it all. The left seems to feel it necessary to label all who disagree with them, including persons of color(any).
By his definition, he fits the label he tries to put on others.

Hmmm. Me, too.

race-baiting is an industry among these new leftists,
it seems to me -- it's exactly parallel to the KKK
theme decades ago, that all non-whites are bad.
in the new situation, all whites are bad. -- j

This article was the longest diatribe of crap I ever read (well, part of it anyways). I could not finish it. I had to stop when it said Romney was a douchebag but Biden wasn't!!! As far as the Michael Brown part, the evidence that came out today proves that he was not killed in cold blood by a white cop just killing another black man.

Why are there not riots when a black cop guns down a white man???

did anyone finish the article?

I got a ways in and determined that he is a Douchebag and PROUD of it.

When describing himself he forgot to add, "who is irrelevant and so will be increasing his volume in a vain, desperate attempt to seem relevant. Y'know, like labor unions."

Need a lifeboat to paddle to shore from the center of the gutter?

It troubles me that this is even a subject for discussion when so many other really important problems troubling our world today.

For someone to be a racist, they have to first be a collectivist, have to ascribe certain characteristics to individuals based on their collective genetics, to their collective "class," to their collective station in life.

The word "prejudice" stems from "pre judge." Prejudging is irrational, by definition, especially when the prejudgment stems from or focues on an awareness of color or ethnicity, etc.

A rational person judges persons on behaviors, those "actions" that lead to consequences. If there are no actions from which to draw conclusions, there cannot be a rational judgment made about a person. A black person walking down the street cannot be judge as a nigger unless the judging person is a collectivist that ascribes nigger to all blacks. That is not rational.

I call people names based on their behaviors and judge their behaviors based on the consequences. Good consequences, good names. Bad consequences, bad names. WHAT people DO is the determining factor, nothing else.

Gee I thought god was a woman (no balls, hairy or otherwise).!

I could not finish reading that.

Good one! You must have some "saur" in you! I'm gonna save that for future use when needed.

I proudly tell people that as an Objectivist, I cannot be a racist - by DEFINITION. Racism is the lowest form of collectivist thought and the hallmark of a small mind.

Then I prove it by living it.
(I wasn't raised racist. I got lucky.)

There will be nothing left for them to steal.