James Taranto, who does an awesome job putting up the Wall Street Journal’s Best of the Web, had some commentary of his own to say yesterday afternoon about a study claimed that white referees called fouls at a greater rate against black players than against white players:

Are we alone in thinking it invidious to refer to blacks and whites as “opposite races”? True, the colors black and white are opposites (to be precise, each is either the absence or presence of all colors, depending on whether the reference is to pigmentation or light). But if you’re “black” or “white” and you look in the mirror, what you see will be either a shade of brown or a sort of pinkish light beige.

It seems likely that the phrase “opposite race” is an analogy to “opposite sex.” But men and women really are opposites, at least as far as sex goes. And whereas both sexes need each other to carry on the species, mankind has no need for either a white or a black race. China has 1.3 billion people, most of whom are neither “black” nor “white.”

Here’s what’s really problematic about this analogy, though: Opposite sexes imply that certain social roles can be filled only by one sex or the other. Only a man can be a father, husband, brother or uncle; only a woman can be a mother, wife, sister or aunt.

Are there any roles that can be filled only by someone black or someone white? Not that we can think of, but there used to be. In America, it was once the case that only a black person could be a slave; and, by and large, only a white person could be a master. Sex roles are compatible with the equal dignity and humanity of both sexes; there is nothing inherently superior or inferior about a mother as opposed to a father, or an uncle as opposed to an aunt. Needless to say, the relationship between master and slave is in a different category altogether.

It’s hard to see how the idea that blacks and whites are “opposite races” is anything other than a throwback to white supremacy. The use of this phrase in scholarly papers may tell us something unlovely about the racial attitudes that prevail in academia.

I like what Taranto is saying here. I have not read the study, but I am curious, since as we add generations on this earth the chances of someone being “purely black” or “purely white” (not to mention Latino, Asian, and other genetic influences) decreases, if there weren’t some sort of selection bias introduced when the people conducting the study determined whether players were black or white. Most of the time, sure, it’s obvious, but not all the time. If there is a natural inclination to prove there is racial bias, a person has a subconscious incentive to classify a person with a blended pigmentation as white if that referee calls fouls aggressively, and a middle-of-the-color basketball player who commits a lot of fouls could be classified as black.

Taranto notes earlier in his post that the NBA needs to handle bias one referee at a time. I also find that appropriate. When third parties are called upon to make sure the rules are obeyed, they need to be accountable and make sure they are doing their jobs correctly, no matter the direction of their bias. If the referees can’t perform their duties and the players can’t trust the officials, the game becomes a soap opera like the WWE instead of a competition.