I believe you mean your restatement of the Borders issue to be a refutation in part, but you could, and should, have gone further. You use the non-neutral word ‘segregating’ and call the solution “ludicrous”. But why was it ludicrous? Acknowledging that there is a specific demand and market for black authors is racist? A similar approach is generally viewed as the opposite of racist in other contexts: African-American studies programs, movies made by black directors using mostly black actors, radio stations with an R&B format, lines of specially-formulated grooming products. Speaking more as someone who has been alive for the last twenty years than as a former (low-level) Borders employee, I feel confident that the separate section was an attempt to be inclusive, not exclusive, to single out black authors for more sales, not less — for commercial purposes, true, but then aren’t most of these things? Any business pursuing diversity and social justice is doing so as a marketing strategy. I think if bookstores had never conceived of the idea of separate sections, activists would now be demanding them in the name of diversity. Part of what makes social-justice activism so fraught is that often you can’t win.