Thanks for the link. Guess I was looking for the link to be highlighted. Interesting article, and relevant, even if a little dated. 

Much resentment is created and fueled when the politically correct go too far in dictating what is socially acceptable.

It would seem that Woods is suggesting a color wheel of possible skin colors be effected so that people could describe someone without mentioning that dirty word "race".

I note that the VicAd has eliminated age from their interviewee descriptions. This is good. It has no real relevance to a public opinion situation, and nor would race. It would be important to include that information if we're on the lookout for a criminal.

"Ma'am," said the officer, "Would you look at this color wheel and tell me if the perpetrator was more toward the coal black end of the spectrum , the caramel or ginger portion, or the light milk chocolate, or should we go more toward the pink skin tones?"  This is just not practical and could even be quite harmful in a law enforcement context.

It has become a sad by-product of civil rights/anti-discrimination laws that everyone is afraid of offending another because of their race, creed, color, nationality. the laws were never intended to limit the ability of of enforcement officers to do their job. Yet we, primarily because of the media and a desire to prove beyond doubt how NON PREJUDICED we are, have tied the hands of many who are trying to do their jobs.

NOTE: I intentionally did not include sex, age, and handicap in the above-mentioned protected class because the media has not yet set the politically correct tone for these individuals. This was verified  beyond question with the nutty Letter to the Editor published this week by the VicAd in which a man (I assume) is ranting about women being the cause of ALL evil and men only being dragged along and suffering punishment because of their (women's) pure evilness. Let's substitute a racial epithet in place of the female condemnation. There is not a news outlet in this country that would print this letter unless the letter could be associated with a hate crime. Shame on you. You have the editorial right to not print offensive letters. You choose to print letters offensive to certain groups, and that is just not right.

I would be safe, I think, in calculating at least 50% of your customer base is female.  

Back to the subject at hand. We have "black history" month; "Hispanic Heritage" designated days, weeks, months; Irish concentrated  celebrations. Yet we can't identify a potential criminal by his race?

Discrimination exists when a race has been flagged for differential treatment. If cops only stop black drivers on a Friday night, then that is profiling. If the police state they are looking for what a witness-described as a Latino male, large in size, with prominent tattoos, that is a legal description. Should the police feel the victim needs to describe their version of what a Latino male looks like, the media doesn't have to print this part of the interview. The police do, however, have an obligation to challenge a description if it is vague. 

The original race issue arose many years ago because the media did elaborate unnecessarily on race. Whether a crime or a marching band, the media designated them as black, Negro, or whatever term was currently in use. Civil rights leaders only asked that the media quit characterizing black as a morality disease. It brought needed attention to this issue, but went too far beyond the equality issue.  

If the victim describes the assailant as an old, skinny, white man, with a faded anchor tattoo on one arm and MOM tattoo on the other with a strong Irish accent, that's a legitimate description. If the victim describes the perpetrator as a "really ugly", old, bald, very tall white woman, that is a description, but he/she could have left out the "ugly". that's an assumption. Might also want to ask what the victim considers to be a really tall woman. Oh, and how bald is she?

An investigation has been ordered of the South Carolina state police because their officers seem to have a thing for abusing black citizens. Hitting them with patrol cars. Stopping them for fun. That is racial profiling. If the black officers go after white citizens, that's racial profiling. If someone tells me one of their best friend is black, I'm not impressed. In fact, I'm quite leery of their sincerity if they have to tell me this.

Sometimes instead of jumping to the racial slur conclusion, perhaps the media might want to step back and explain that they are only printing the information provided to them. If indications of racial profiling should arise, challenge the answering party on their ability to separate the job from the persons physical characteristics. Otherwise, you could be doing grave public harm.

Am I opening my door to a potential criminal? Gee, I don't know. He's a white guy, but has really dark skin from being in the sun a lot, possibly. The description was so vague because we don't want to offend anybody by giving an accurate or as accurate as possible description.

Mr. Martinez,

It seems as if your mind is made up.  But if you take your description of the perp & remove the tatoo & the car, the description is vague at best.  As you should know, most times when people are victimized they don't get such a thorough description or the perp may not have visible tattoos & such, then what do you have to put out to the community...a dark haired, dark skinned male, possible height, clothing description, then you have more people fitting into that description white, black & brown.  If the victim is certain of the race then just say it, it is in the publics best interest.  When it comes to the safety of the PUBLIC (everyone) you can't worry about how it may upset 1 group (a few).

raceism  is a bad thing. making special schools just for a paticular race isn't fare either. but trying to locate a bad guy by describing what possible race he may be from is a start in the rite direction. if the bad guy is definately a person of color should we describe him as possibly white just so we don't offend anyone? don't you think they would know if they were black or white or whatever?

if there was a big bald headed man tearing up a place and the police go on the call and there are three big bald headed guys standing there. one black , one white, and one hispanic. the fighting had stopped. so how is the cop supposed to find out wich one it is. i guess the asailant could say it was the lightest, darkest, or the tan one but give me a break. wouldn't it just be easier to say it was the white guy, or black guy , or the hispanic guy. wouldn't that make more since. instead of dancing around it?

Most local newspapers may hinge when reporting issues of race, but on a national level race sells.  As long as race issues exists, those who can profit by our inability to deal with racial issues will continue to report and make profit.

It is not the intent of major news agencies, television and radio talk show hosts to solve our problems dealing with race, because this is an issue that brings them financial gain.  The news media and "talking heads"  know the power of fear, ingnorance and mistrust.
When people who live in local communities buy into the media spin, we allow the media to think for us rather than thinking for ourselves.

Race is an issue that is too important for us as a community not to address because it affects productivety in schools, churches, workplaces, community service events and polluts our political and justice systems.

As a community  have a moral responsibility to solve this riddle of racism and not pass this delima to future generations. For example; when we build the new schools in Victoria will we revert back to one school is better than the other base on the racial precentages of the students who attend each school? 
The question is do we have the courage and will to challenge ourselves to do what is right rather than what is comfortable?

I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOUR SAYING ABOUT SPECIFICS BUT IF YOUR TO CONCERNED ABOUT BEING POLITICALLY CORRECT THAT YOU CAN'T MAKE EVEN A SUGGESTION OF WHAT THEIR RACE IS WHEN TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE IN FINDING THE GUY COME ON ; I THINK THEY NEED TO KNOW WHETHER THEY COULD BE CAUCATION OR AFRICAN AMERICAN. IF THE GUY HAS BLONDE HAIR, BLUE EYES. AND LILLY WHITE YOU MAY BE PRETTY CLOSE IN STATING POSSIBLE CAUCATION THEN ADD THE DETAIL. I DON'T THINK YOU WOULD STEP ON ANY BODIES TOES BY AT LEAST BEING IN THE BALL PARK. DO YOU THINK SOME WHITE GUY WOULD BE OFFENDED BY ANOUNCEMENT LOOKING FOR POSSIBLE CAUCATION WITH LIGHT BLONDE HAIR AND BLUE EYES. DON'T YOU THINK IT WOULD BE SILLY FOR THEM TO FREAK OUT SAYING THEIR RACIAL PROFILING AGAIN.

WHEN YOU HAVE TO TRACK DOWN A CRAZY NUT SHOTTING UP THE TOWN A GOOD START WOULD BE TO KNOW IN GENERAL WHAT NATIONALITY YOUR LOOKING FOR. I THINK MOST PEOPLE WOULD KNOW AT FIRST GLANCE SOME OF THE GENERAL CARACTERISTIC OF CAUCATION, HISPANIC, ASIAN, OR AFRICAN. THEN YOU CAN GO INTO MORE DETAIL. BUT IF YOUR TALKING ABOUT AN ALBINO VS. A VERY DARK BLACK MAN I THINK YOU CAN NARROW IT DOWN SOMEWHAT ANYWAY. AND I DON'T THINK THAT SHOULD STEP ON ANYBODY'S TOES AND IF IT DOES YOUR TALKING ABOUT SAVING LIVES. SUCH AS IF THERE'S A SHOOTOUT AT SOME COLLEDGE CAMPUS AND THEY HAVE ALLREADY SAID IT'S AN ASIAN GUY THATS HIDING IN THE BUILDING THEY WOULDN'T NEED TO BE LOOKING FOR A CAUCATION OR HISPANIC BECAUSE THEY HAD ALLREADY NARROWED IT DOWN SOMEWHAT. THEN OF COURSE YOU WOULD HAVE TO NARROW IT DOWN FURTHER.