David Brooks writes in the New York Times:
Sometimes the behavioral research leads us to completely change how we think about an issue. For example, many of our anti-discrimination policies focus on finding the bad apples who are explicitly prejudiced. In fact, the serious discrimination is implicit, subtle and nearly universal. Both blacks and whites subtly try to get a white partner when asked to team up to do an intellectually difficult task. In computer shooting simulations, both black and white participants were more likely to think black figures were armed. In emergency rooms, whites are pervasively given stronger painkillers than blacks or Hispanics. Clearly, we should spend more effort rigging situations to reduce universal, unconscious racism.
Now that I think about it, this could be a deeply encoded anti-racial quota argument. I suspect Brooks might be thinking vaguely about the recent book by Richard Sander and Stuart Taylor Jr., Mismatch: How Affirmative Action Hurts Students It's Intended to Help, and Why Universities Won't Admit It.
But, that wouldn't make any sense combined with the violence statement. And the implication that Emergency Room Indian doctors and Filipino nurses are conspiring to inflict needless pain on NAMs is just kind of out there. What is this a reference to, anyway? Are a higher percentage of NAMs who go into emergency rooms trying to cadge free drugs while a higher percentage of whites have, like, actual broken arms? But my assumption was that white people were the big prescription pain pill addicts, so I'm just baffled...
We used to have a two-word explanation for things we didn't like: "evil spirits." But now, in a case of Occam's Razor in Action, we have a one-word explanation: "racism."