Well, "objectively pro-racist" has been focus tested with the target group.

A while back we heard about the "soft racism of low expectations". On Brad DeLong's comments, I tried "soft racism" of wearing racial blinders. (A poster was arguing that black college graduates are less qualified than white college graduates.) Multiple sorching flames later, I think I got my point across.

The term is "conservative" as in those who would maintain the status quo and who benefit from it. Although not actively racist, the basic tenets and the derivation of the term, lingusitically and historically, regardless of party affiliation, embody "passive" racism.

One can believe in a principle that may on occasion have unpleasant side effects, the Miranda ruling for example: Our legal system is based on the assumption that the guilty should go free before the innocent are convicted of crimes.
One can honestly think that the state should only rarely be involved in active coercion, even to the extent of allowing white males to maintain the social advantages they were born with, at whatever cost to blacks or women, simply because the state itself did not create those advantages. One can argue, strictly on principle, that the state should not 'legislate' social activity. I wouldn't do it. I would not make such an argument. But I wouldn't necessarily, call it a 'racist idea'. But at the same time I would not call such social manipulation ’natural’ to our democracy, any more than I would use that word to describe a rosebush in an arbor. I might think the plant healthier for the pruning, but it still raises important questions.

I believe there was a debate at some point over affirmative action even within the civil rights community. The problem was that there was no way to force financial equity on a nationwide basis in elementary education. The unconstitutionality of funding discrepancies among the various states still seems obvious [funding based on real estate taxes is absurd] but the issue was stillborn politically. The fallback position which was, like it or not, a quota system, seems a problematic response, but it was made necessary by the impossibility of inaugurating the obvious constitutionally suited and moral policy of national funding of all education.

Pickering, regardless of Ralph Neas' nice guy language, is accused of more. And considering his position, we should not have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he is a racist to see him disallowed a higher bench. He should be toast

Think simple. Learn different. Macinstruct.net