Smart dude.

Of course, half of the reason that being called "racist" is problematic isn't just that it's attacking one's self-image as a good person - although I agree that that is part of the issue in many self-righteous arguments.

The "tonsillectomy versus dental hygiene" model of morality he mentions applies as much to the public perception. If you are a racist, then all your opinions are invalid, because it points to a deeper level of flawed internal reasoning. If you are called a racist, the public onus is on you to either a) apologize profusely and admit error or... well, there is no real plan B. It's incredibly hard to defend against a (possibly, in your opinion anyway, unjustified) charge of racism, at least in an online or debate setting, in any area that is remotely borderline (ie, practically any area of interesting debate regarding race relations).

I think as he says, the more that the focus can be kept on the act, or statement, rather than either an internal or external judge of the intrinsic moral character of the speaker, the better, at least for trying to have a reasoned dialog. You can agree to disagree on whether a statement was racist - it's harder to do that over whether you are a horrible racist person, and still have a useful discussion.

Of course, those who dislike me here would probably say I'm saying this just because I like to deny being racist ;-)

For an example of a constructive conversation on race - by a white man no less - here's a succinct and brilliant take on "Racism and Meritocracy" in the software/technology industry by @ericries:twitter : http://techcrunch.com/2011/11/19/racism-and-meritocracy/

The corresponding commentary on HackerNews, a social news website for hackers (a positive term in this context), is equally intriguing: http://hackerne.ws/item?id=3260914

A few excerpts from the article:

"This is why I personally care about diversity: it’s the canary in the coal mine for meritocracy. When we see extremely skewed demographics, we have very good reason to suspect that something is wrong with our selection process, that it’s not actually as meritocratic as it could be. And I believe that is exactly what is happening in Silicon Valley."

....

"When it comes to meritocracy and diversity, the symbolic is real. And that means that simple actions that reduce bias, such as blind resume or application screening, are a double win: they reduce implicit bias and they help communicate our commitment to meritocracy. As a startup ecosystem we are in the meritocracy business. This is the path towards making Silicon Valley – and every other startup hub – even more awesome."

Gwen Sharp, in your post you described  the presentation given by Jay Smooth as  excellent and described the video of that talk as "a great 11-minute video on how we might try to discuss race, and racism, constructively". If you wanted a discussion about that presentation, it seems to me that you might have been less effusive in your description of it.

Jay Smooth is a very articulate & personable speaker. I agree with him that the "tonsillectomy" concept about removing racism isn't valid. Racism isn't something that is totally removed at one given point in time. 

I believe that the dental hygiene analogy is more valid , except for the burden that Jay Smooth seems to put on someone else telling the person that she (or he) needs to brush her (or his) teeth, or the burden that Jay Smooth seems to put on someone else telling the person that she (or he) has something caught in her (or his) teeth. Continuing with that dental hygiene analogy, people should know when their teeth need brushing just because of how their teeth feel. And, continuing with that analogy, most of the time, people know when they have something caught in their teeth because they can feel it, and it doesn't feel comfortable. I'd love for people to take more responsibility for their own dental hygiene.

However, when people say or do or write something racist, they may not be aware of it. So then, the burden does fall on someone else to point out to them that what thy have said, or done, or wrote is racist. Often, given the way the world is, that burden falls most heavily on members of the race or ethnic group which has been directly targeted by that racism. (Of course, we could substitute sexual orientation, gender, class, religion, nationality, etc for race). 

But-on this blog for example- when a person points out to the moderators that "you have something caught in your teeth" almost always there is NO response from those moderators.

Or some other bloggers will jump to the defense of those moderators (for one reason or another)  and (continuing the dental hygiene analogy) will write that "No they don't have anything stuck in their teeth" and/or No one else noticed that the person has something in her (or his) teeth so you must be imagining things. Other reactions on this blog and elsewhere are "Aren't you rude to suggest that a person has something stuck in her teeth!" , and/or "No there's nothing wrong with her teeth. You're the one who has dirty teeth."  Furthermore, on this blog and elsewhere-still continuing with the "you have something stuck in your teeth analogy", another response to someone pointing that out is to say "You're obsessed with the topic of clean teeth (because) you're  always telling people that they need to do a better job of cleaning their teeth." 

It seems to me that often people either really don't see "the food stuck in another person's teeth" or they think the food is supposed to be stuck in that person's teeth, because their teeth also has food stuck in them. After all, it's usually part of appropriate societal behavior to act like you don't see the food stuck in another person's (or your own) teeth. This reaction might be similar to seeing a man you don't know whose pants zipper is down. The usual societal reaction wouldn't be to go up to him and tell him "Zip up your pants". This is particularly true if it's a female who notices that a male's zipper is down. You just pretend that you don't see it. Maybe a male can accept another male telling him that his fly is open, but a woman telling him that? That puts him in an awkward and embarrassing situation. In the same sense, maybe people of the same race are more accepting of someone from their race telling them that what they said or did is racist than people from other races telling them the same thing. 

My bottom line is that I would be more inclined to believe that the moderators of this blog really were interested in open discussions about race & racism if they engaged in  discussions with bloggers here rather than just published post after post about race and racism.

I am going to re-post what I stated elsewhere:

One thought I would add to his commentary is that someone can be racist,
but that doesn't mean they are a "bad" person. I can understand not
wanting to outright call someone racist for the sake of trying to have
meaningful dialogue regarding racism and prejudice, yet at the same time
I feel we then reach the conundrum of there being lots of people saying
and doing racist things but there being no named racists. When there
are no "racists" people seem to believe racism is not a problem anymore
("I'm not racist but..."). I've come across many white people who seem
to think being called a racist is worse than actually doing racist
things. We need to redefine the word from the extreme and limited
definition it has had in recent years.

Amazing write-up! This could aid plenty of people find out more about this particular issue. Are you keen to integrate video clips coupled with these? It would absolutely help out. Your conclusion was spot on and thanks to you; I probably won’t have to describe everything to my pals. I can simply direct them here!