An Astounding Perspective on the Duke Rape

While I'm willing to cut African-Americans some slack in their commentary on this, this column in Time takes is so absurd I would suggest that Time's editors are racist (if I were one to use such a term) for their patronizing decision to print it. This is how the author sees the larger issue surrounding the case:

The fiasco at Duke reminds us of the vulnerability of black women, of most minority women in America who have never been protected from sex crimes by (white) men — at least not in the way that white women were historically "protected" from black men.

Well, no, if she means "historically protected" in the sense that a white man hitting on a black woman would be hung from the highest tree, then it's true they don't have that kind of protection. But white-on-black rape is so rare, one might think that they very well might. See this quote on interracial crime from back in September last year:

Every year there are about 15,000 black-on-white rapes but fewer than 900 white-on-black rapes. There are more than 3,000 gang rapes of whites by blacks—but white-on-black gang rapes are so rare they do not even show up in the statistics.

The author finishes solemnly:

Women of color in this country — and, to an extent, women in general — still teeter on that fine line between being seen as exotic objects of desire and, well, objects.

Unbelievable - "to an extent, women in general..." With 15,000 black-on-white rapes each year, I'd say to quite an extent. Women of color clearly do have plenty to fear - from men of color. The editors of Time should be ashamed of themselves allowing such stupidity into their journal. But then again, I have to admit, the Wall Street Journal does print Fred Barnes, so there is precedent.