{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.020998415213946117, 'fraction_numerical': 0.005942947702060222, 'mean_word_length': 5.203931203931204, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
A TROUBLESOME RECURRENCE

In a recent panel discussion at Harvard University's Hiphop Archive and Research Institute, Ferguson Activist Ashley Yates blasted the calls for a " politics of respectability " heard in some quarters after strident protests against police killings of unarmed Black civilians. She declared: " You can't pull your pants up high enough to stop a bullet! " Posing neatly coiffed and politely asking others to acknowledge one's humanity seems out of place in the face of circumstances, now numbingly catalogued in an exhaustive Department of Justice Report, that can only be described as modern state-sanctioned racial oppression (U.S. Department of Justice 2015). Sometimes outrage is justified. When deeply troublesome circumstances or events occur it is only natural that powerful responses should be expected to follow. How should scholars and intellectuals respond when scientific racism seems to again rear its ugly head? The distinguished historian George M. Fredrickson warned in his book Racism: A Short History (2002): " The legacy of the past racism directed at blacks in the United States is more like a bacillus we have failed to destroy, a live germ that not only continues to make some of us ill but retains the capacity to generate new strains of a disease for which we have no certain cure " (p. 143). There is perhaps no more telling indicator of the truth of this anxiety-arousing observation than the resurgence of racial thinking taking place in connection with the mapping of the human genome and developments in biological science. This trend reached a new nadir with the publication of journalist and former New York Times science editor Nicholas Wade's recent book A Troublesome Inheritance: Genes, Race and Human History (2014). The book advocates not only for a biological understanding of race and racial differences, but attaches ostensible natural categorizations to profound differences between the races in contributions to the advancement of human civilization. Fortunately, two eminent scholars of the place where race, scientific thinking, and social dynamics intersect provide careful and trenchantly reasoned reviews of this most troublesome book. Both Ann Morning and Dorothy Roberts find fault with Nicholas Wade's overt embrace of a biologically rooted racial categorization scheme. Both point out the inescapably political character and potential consequences of such a declaration , all of Wade's disclaimers to the contrary notwithstanding. Both reviewers are