Erin Aubry Kaplan offers a misguided effort comparing Michael Richards to O.J. as proof there is "greater tolerance for a white man's unsavory behavior than a black man's." Kaplan writes:

I'm not equating racist invective with charges of double homicide. But the reality is that there is far more tolerance for a white person's unseemly behavior than for similar behavior of somebody who isn't white, especially if the unseemliness involves race. Richards' "racist rant" has been described as a terrible but isolated incident. O.J., meanwhile, is condemned for his character.

What a terribly weak argument. Kaplan is so desperate to shoehorn these two things together to prove some sort of racial double standard she completely misses the point. Michael Richards is finished as a performer - if he wasn't already. Richards is stained forever by his behavior this week. No one will be able to sit through a single rerun of Seinfeld from this point forward without making a mental note of Richards' racist rant.

In that sense, Richards is exactly like O.J.: you simply can't look at anything O.J. has ever done, whether it's a football highlight or a clip from the Naked Gun, without seeing him as an utterly unrepentant double-murderer. (Unlike Kaplan, I'm not ambivalent about whether O.J. is a killer or not).

Kaplan says she's "not equating racist invective with charges of double homicide" except that that's exactly what she's doing. And by that measure, Michael Richards is paying a much greater price for his sin than James Orenthal Simpson is paying for his.

So Kaplan's comparison is bogus, but what about her larger point? Is there a greater tolerance for the "unsavory behavior" of whites than blacks?

When it comes to racially insensitive language, I'd say the answer is just the opposite. It seems to me that whites are generally held to a higher standard, for obvious reasons, and there is more scrutiny and less tolerance for anything that might possibly construed as racist or bigoted.

(One notable exception that springs to mind is Robert Byrd using the "n-word" on television a few years back. Even though Byrd used the term to characterize the demeanor of white adolenscents, it's something a Republican would would have been severely punished for.)

As far as other "unsavory behavior" goes, I don't know there's proof of a racial double standard. Is Robert Blake any less of a pariah than Simpson? Was Jason Blair treated differently than Stephen Glass? Perhaps there are examples out there that I'm missing, if anyone can think of some that help prove Kaplan's point please send them through.

If Kaplan wants to argue about racial double standards in the legal system (disparities in sentencing, the death penalty, etc), fine. Let's hear it. Otherwise, her attempt to compare Michael Richards and O.J. as proof of some broad racial double standard in our society just doesn't hold water.