What I find astonishing is that a Ph.D can write such divisive nonsense and think this helps things for anybody in any way. Your insistence on seeing things solely through racial division and black vs white, and bringing in unrelated incidents to prove points on this one (which they don't, btw) makes my skin crawl. This from a man supposedly held to a high standard by your institution, and society generally. (a Professor, a Ph.D). Whatever the facts of this case, which are right now being properly dealt with, there is literally no evidence, in any form including anything submitted during the trial itself, of there being a racial component to it, at all. Except for the insistence that it must be, by people who say so.