From the LA Times: "About 67 percent of Ferguson, Mo.'s residents are black, but the mayor, police chief, and five of six City Council members are white. Of the 53 police officers, three are black. In recent years, 92 percent of the police's searches and 80 percent of their car stops involved black people." Question: How is it that the mayor, police chief and five of six City Council members are white in a city that is 67 percent black? Last I checked, blacks have voting rights and are allowed to run for political office. Either not enough blacks choose to vote or not enough choose to run for political office. If this is a problem, it can be laid directly at the doorstep of black voters and their lack of political involvement. Question: Is a predominantly white police force racist, because 92 percent of police searches and 80 percent of car stops involve blacks? If the crime rate among blacks is much higher than among whites, which it is, then it's not surprising that there are proportionally more black suspects stopped by police. This is not evidence of racism, but an indication that the police are doing their job in protecting a predominantly black community, because blacks are much more likely to be killed by another black person than they are by a cop. Question: Are white police who serve a black population presumptively racist? That has been the complaint all along -- that white police can't be trusted to fairly serve a black community. But why? Is it not prejudiced to assume that a police officer's skin color is evidence of racial bias? Is this not itself an example of racism? It certainly is, but the double standard is rarely acknowledged. The statistical disparities noted by the LA Times are easily explained and have nothing to do with racism.
| 
