Imagine if Jonathan Capehart wrote a column with these words
Where is the politician who will own up to the painful complexity of the problem and acknowledge the widespread fear of crime committed by Jewish financiers? This does not mean that raw racism has disappeared, and some judgments are not the product of invidious stereotyping. It does mean, though, that the public knows Jewish financiers commit a disproportionate amount of financial crime. In New York City, blacks make up a quarter of the population, yet they represent 78 percent of all financial criminal suspects — almost all of them young men. We know them from the nightly news. (note I don't know if the stats are correct for this example I just kept the numbers).
Would he still be on the op ed page of the Washington Post?
So why is Richard Cohen when he wrote this:
Where is the politician who will own up to the painful complexity of the problem and acknowledge the widespread fear of crime committed by young black males? This does not mean that raw racism has disappeared, and some judgments are not the product of invidious stereotyping. It does mean, though, that the public knows young black males commit a disproportionate amount of crime. In New York City, blacks make up a quarter of the population, yet they represent 78 percent of all shooting suspects — almost all of them young men. We know them from the nightly news.
= new reply since forum marked as read
