In the piece Racial Formation, the question of the state’s role in providing special treatment for members of races who have faced institutional discrimination in the past is raised. “Neo-conservative” and “liberal” reactions to this dilemma are presented, which nicely sum up the two poles of the American debate: one which aims to propagate institutional inequality and privilege in the guise of egalitarianism; and another that takes a history of discrimination into account in an attempt to right those historical wrongs.

The position of this here article I’ve provided from The Economist doesn’t adhere to either of those poles exactly. I feel the American body politic is badly wanting in nuance, so here’s some nuance. The Economist espouses a more Classical Liberal alignment.

This is the exposition … <http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21576662-governments-should-be-colour-blind-time-scrap-affirmative-action>

…to the larger article: http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21576658-first-three-pieces-race-based-preferences-around-world-we-look-americas

This is an obituary from The Times. This fellow Bob Fletcher was quite the iconoclast. The man worked for the state, which as we know played (plays) no small part in codifying institutional racism. Yet, as an individual, the man chose to tend the farms and pay the bills of three Japanese-American families who had been sent to the internment camps at the onset of America’s involvement in WWII. Many of the interned faced financial ruin upon their release. These three families did not, thanks to this Bob Fletcher fellow. It’s a nice thing to read.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/07/us/bob-fletcher-dies-at-101-saved-farms-of-interned-japanese-americans.html?smid=fb-nytimes&WT.z_sma=US_BFD_20130607&_r=0