(But then – there are white people who benefit enormously from racism, so there’s that.)

If by “treating all races equally,” you mean the police reducing the rate at which they murder Black suspects to the same rate at which they murder white suspects, I would be OK with that.

Thank you, that is the best explanation I have heard so far and this definitely has been a journey. It does not matter where on this globe you live, that dictionary definition of racism is universal, genderless, ageless and colorless.

No, read Suzanne’s comments – all the company has to do legally is demonstrate their honest belief that her behavior reflected poorly on the company, and consistency in punishment. Unless they neglected to fire someone else for similar behavior, given the video, this is a no-brainer.

No, the law does not say that “discrimination against someone because they are white (or any other color) is racism.”

The law says discrimination based on race is illegal. It says nothing about what racism is or isn’t.

Someone needs to tell Ms. Cooper that the best thing to do when one finds oneself in a hole is to put down the shovel and stop digging.

Well, Amy Cooper certainly didn’t “expect all races to be treated identically.” She knew full well that calling the Police and falsely claiming that Christian Cooper was assaulting her could, conceivably, lead to his death, and that his race made that outcome multiple times more likely than had they been the same race. White privilege dies hard.

The definition of racism she was using is the one used by social scientists, who insist that — without a power disparity present — you can have racial bias, but not racism. And, no, it has nothing to do with so-called identity politics or falsely claiming that only white people can be racists. Any time a dominant group oppresses a subordinate group based on race, that’s racism, regardless of the race of the oppressors.

The law does, in fact, say that discrimination against someone because they are white (or any other color) is racism. And there’s case law that says it means what it says (and the US Constitution requires it under the equal protection clause).

From what I’ve seen in other sources, her lawsuit isn’t based on a claim of an insufficient investigation on the part of the company, it’s based on a claim that she was treated differently specifically because she is white – that a black employee would have gotten a more thorough investigation. The claim, on its face, has legal merit. (Whether or not she can back it up is up to the jury, and I suspect it’s a steep hill to climb.)