Writes Sol Stern, of City Journal (emphasis mine):

Like many other ex-sixties radicals, I once made the unfortunate mistake of thinking that the Black Panthers were a legitimate social protest movement. In fact, in August 1967, the New York Times Magazine published my charitable article on Huey Newton, complete with the now-iconic photo of the Panther "Minister of Defense" seated on an African wicker throne, with a gun in one hand and a spear in the other.

Within a few years, I understood that I should have described Newton and his cadres as psychopathic criminals, not social reformers. By now, a torrent of articles and books, many written by former sympathizers, has voluminously documented the Panther reign of murder and larceny within their own community.

Please note: "within their own community." In other words, Sol's own internal feelings and agenda eclipsed (or caused him not to look for) objective evidence that the Black Panthers were no heros. As a reporter, Sol made the mistake of treating the Black Panthers as a symbol, rather than doing honest, objective warts-and-all reporting.

And because of the bias of Stern and other (usually white) reporters, specific black citizens within the Panters' own community continued to suffer and be victimized, instead of having these thugs exposed and put behind bars as they ought.

Sol seems to admit as much while also attributing his own motivations to those of the New York Times:

Despite the mea culpas by publisher Arthur Sulzberger and executive editor Howell Raines over the Jayson Blair affair, the paper's obsession with white guilt and black victimhood apparently still trumps every standard of journalistic and historical accuracy.

Where else but in Sulzberger's and Raines's Times could a review of an exhibit of photographs of the Black Panthers turn into a political lecture by a white art critic on the justice of black violence?

These days, it's fashionable (especially on the left, but perhaps a bit on the right also) to demonize one's opponents. To ignore any question of factuality and treat each assertion, purported fact, or allegation as a purely political entity. (Think affirmative action may have this or that drawback? You must be a racist! Do you disagree about the percentage of gays in the population? You must be a hate-filled homophobe!)

But facts transcend politics -- and good politics should flow from facts, not the other way around. And without good, objective reporting, we cannot shape our politics correctly. Distorted facts -- however well intended -- lead to a distorted worldview, and ultimately culminate in distorted politics. And by distorted politics, I mean earnest, well-intentioned support for policies which, quite frankly, make the world a worse place to live.

Consider David Dinkins of New York. As with Marion Barry of D.C., the Dinkins mayoral victory was a victory for America -- black and white. Blacks saw it as an opportunity to have a representative speak with an authentic black voice at highest levels in one of the most important cities in the world. Progressive whites saw it as vindication for years of guilt: See, we're over it! We're not racist any more -- a black man is in charge of New York city now!

Of course, the fact that Dinkins was one of the worst mayors New York ever had, with an incredible crime rate (especially in poor minority neighborhoods, lacking the wealth to afford security services) and far more incidents of police brutality than during the much-maligned Guiliani years -- went largely unreported. (Under Dinkins police shot civilians 273 times, killing 41; under Guiliani: 73 shootings, killing 11. (source)) Whites had finished patting themselves on the backs and turned their attention to other matters, or were too afraid to speak out for fear of being politically incorrect, while certain black demogogues characterized all criticism of Dinkins policies as racist.

But the simple truth was, regardless of his skin color, Dinkins was a lousy mayor. And let's not even mention Marion Barry. These men are not credits to black America, nor America as a whole -- they are embarassments to all of us. And poor role models for children of any color.

Those of us who grew up in the 60s -- or the very tail end of it and early 70s, as I did -- could not helped be shaped by the powerful words of Reverend Martin Luther King's "I have a dream" speech:

I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal." I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slaveowners will be able to sit down together at a table of brotherhood. I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a desert state, sweltering with the heat of injustice and oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice. I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character... With this faith we will be able to work together, to pray together, to struggle together, to go to jail together, to stand up for freedom together, knowing that we will be free one day....

[W]hen we let [freedom] ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual, "Free at last! free at last! thank God Almighty, we are free at last!"

As a boy growing up in a liberal, Christian household this struck a strong chord with lessons I had already been learning (and still does). On one hand, colorblindness seemed to be the logical extension of the "golden rule" (a primary lesson for Christian children) into the realm of race: How do you judge if a given behavior is correct? Switch places: Would it be wrong to do this to you? Then it is wrong to do another person. Skin color makes no difference and provides no justification.

And integrationism seems to reflect the kingom of God, as portrayed in the bible. A fraction follows (my comments added in brackets, emphases also mine):

There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise. (Galatians 3:28-29)

Here there is no Greek or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, [black, nor white, nor brown,] slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in all. Therefore, as God's chosen people, holy and dearly loved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience. (Colossians 3:11)

After this I looked and there before me [in heaven] was a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, tribe, people and language, standing before the throne and in front of the Lamb. They were wearing white robes and were holding palm branches in their hands. And they cried out in a loud voice: "Salvation belongs to our God, who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb." (Revelation 7:9-10)

And it's worth noting that while many of the elements of Dr. King's dream have come to pass -- particular the transformation of race relations within the south (Mississippi, formerly a "desert... sweltering with the heat of injustice and oppression" is now a role model for race relations in many ways) -- yet there is also still a lot of racism and inequality in our society. We have indeed come a long way and should be rightfully proud: blacks I speak with say there is simply no comparison between the situation today and the state of this country in the 60s. But there is also plenty of evidence there is still a long way to go, and much work to be done before we can rest on the laurels of our current accomplishments.

That being said, the question remains as to how we will get there -- that utopia of perfect racial relations. And how we, collectively, will meet challenges which still exist and respond to the real injustices which still occur.

One of the obvious challenges is in education, the gateway to the rest of American social and economic life. There is currently a strong disparity between the black/hispanic educational experience and that of whites and asians. On average, black students score lower on SAT scores. Blacks are also still not proportionally represented at the university level, and have a higher dropout rate once accepted.

Of course, these problems we face today does not originate with racist policies at university level -- indeed most colleges are falling over themselves to attract black applicants of nearly any qualification level, and are taking great pains to ensure a quality educational and social experience once the applicant has been accepted. No, these problems originate much earlier, somewhere in the various influences present during the child's formative years, those in the child's society, culture, peer group, school, or home.

The exact nature of these problems, and best short- and long-term solutions to these problems, is a topic quite worthy of public debate. But a vigorous, honest debate cannot happen (a) when the media as a whole, charged with bringing us accurate information, is so strongly biased towards one particular solution that they distort or fail to report information evidence to the contrary, and (b) when a certain class of solutions must be pre-judged, prima-facia as unacceptable, before any serious consideration is made, (c) when those who would question the current "wisdom" are personally demonized before a fair consideration of the content of their arguments are made.

More directly, many of us readily support the goals of affirmative action while questioning the wisdom of the specific implementations being offered today. We strongly support equal access, and want to encourage integrationist-style participation in every aspect of life. We are indeed concerned about the gross educational disparties present among cultures. But we also are concerned with efficacy, morality, and underlying message being sent by current policies.

Further, it is judgemental, not to mention determinental to society as a whole, for those of you who are our critics to claim to know our innermost thoughts and motives, impute no other motivation than KKK-style bigotry to us, and meanwhile fail to actually evaluate all relevant data (much of which does not come from us, but from would-be supporters of current affirmative action programs) and available range of alternatives.

Please note again, the problem isn't that you disagree with us -- that's completely reasonable. The problem is that you question our motives before (or, more accutately, instead of) considering our arguments. It is reasonable to question motive -- but only once you determine a factual, objective error has occurred. If I am wrong, my motives are certainly up for evaulation -- why was I wrong? What led me to consider something else than truth? But if I am right, then I am simply a messenger who should not be shot; a witness who you martyr at your own peril.

This is an important dictinction missed by many on the left. No reasonable person would question why Claude Raines would hire a top-notch reporter who was also black. The reporter's qualifications provide ample motive -- and his skin color and background would be either a neutral factor or a definite bonus. No, instead questions are raised when something goes wrong -- why was this problem overlooked -- why was that false story pushed into the public eye? At this point, the motives and mechanisms which led to error can be legitimately questioned.

Colorblindness, as a goal, is not easy. It would be much easier, I think, if I could just tell myself I supported the right policies and voted for the right candidates, and then let myself off the hook. Instead, I have to watch my heart constantly: Why did I disagree with that person? Was it really because I'm a priviledged white guy? Am I partly a racist inside? Or are they just plain wrong? Do I like this other friend more because he's black? Or do I admire him because because of his other traits? Am I patting myself on the back because I have black friends, and thus dehumanizing them, using them as part of my self-image?

It's work, I tell you. And I'd like to claim I'm innocent, but my record is less than perfect, as I suspect it is with most well-intentioned individuals of all races. When I first meet a person, particularly a black person, I do notice and think about the skin color and my projection of our cultural differences. But over time (usually shortly), unless reminded by the other person, I tend to forget these externals to the point where their occassionally rememberance is a funny suprise. ("Oh, that's right! Bob is black/asian/whatever." To me, he's just Bob, my friend.) But nonetheless, I will continue to hold to the hypocrisy of believing in an ideal I don't yet live up to, and will continue to scold myself when I catch myself falling short.

I'm not saying we should ignore skin color completely. (For example, the sunscreen industry loves guys like me who burn easily. :-) But I am saying that at least some of who are concerned with "reverse racism" are authentically concerned about its moral content -- not just because it's "happening to us" (which it isn't since I'm long out of college) -- but (a) because it is a form of racism, and thus, like anti-black racism, is damaging both its alleged "beneficiaries" and it's purported "victims" (b) is contrary to the ethic in which I was raised, and (c) seems to be of questionable effectiveness.

But again, this post is intended to focus mainly on color-blindness, so I will address more of these details, hopefully, in a future posting. Thank you for your time and consideration.