Basically, this issue should be a deal breaker, though maybe not immediately. It's basically a matter of what's more important: your values or this girl? If you determine that she's not capable of changing her views, then dump her by all means. It will be a lot easier now. But if there's a chance, then try to work it out. Keep in mind though, that if you really think there's a chance for a future with this girl, you will have to deal with her family. And hoping they, too, will change their minds is foolish. I have to deal with racist in-laws, and family members of differing degrees, and it is maddening and heartbreaking.

From reading the other letters, it looks like there are some people who take racism less seriously than others. As though dumping someone for "having different views" is somehow shallow and narrow-minded. But having racist views is rather different than your favorite shirt-color or favorite football team. People with racist views have some rather interesting ways of rationalizing their ignorance, so don't expect them to be able to discern whether someone is tolerating, or condoning their views.

ps--I remember on our second date, the woman who would become my wife asked me if I was a republican, implying that it was a deal breaker if I was.

I was taken aback, only because I had purple hair at the time. I mean, please--A man in his upper thirties with purple hair is not very likely to harbor conservative views. I still tease her about it to this day.

Actually, race as we discuss it is primarily a social construction. Genetic research has not provided any evidence to suggest that one "race" is more or less intelligent than another, or that there is even any strong biological underpinning to the racial categories we have in our society.

Performance on standardized tests of intelligence varies due to educational, cultural and economic background, not because of some genetic construct of race. To put forth an argument about different "adaptations" to jungle or cold environments is to rehash pseudoscientific notions of eugenics that were discredited long ago, not because of a "liberal gestapo", but because they are not good science.

If your girlfriend tries to defend her views with "facts" like those, I'd get out while the gettin's good.

What exactly did she say, and how did she say it? Did she say, "I'm proud to be a little racist," or was it: "I think I might be a little racist sometimes"? Was she declaring a moral stance, or admitting a personal flaw? This guy might be making a big deal out of nothing.

I married a racist Republican. Initially, I was deeply afraid that he would pass his racist attitudes on to our future children. But we talked about it a lot, and I began to see that - as Cary suggested to this questioner - his racism came from his family. It's all he knew. They raised him to believe this way, and no one he'd encountered had ever tried to persuade him otherwise.

Fortunately, his eyes were opened. I'm sure the roots of these beliefs are still there deep down - as they are in many of us - but I can confidently say that he is not a racist anymore. In his case, the beliefs were not firmly ingrained; he was only parroting back the things he'd heard his family say. Perhaps, this questioner's girlfriend will be the same way, but that takes an investment of time and a lot of talking to find out.

And, as one letter writer here warned, I still have to deal with my husband's deeply racist family. That's something this guy needs to consider. Will he be willing to go to bat for his beliefs on a regular basis? Will he be willing to protect his future children from their own grandparents' crazy ideas?

That my comments and those of others who disagree with the radical left are making people call for censorship. It's very revealing that the writer below regards non-leftist opinions (written with good spelling and no foul language) as "trolling" and "flaming."

As for talk radio, this is precisely why liberals never manage to stay on the air for long --- they cannot survive in a forum where open debate is present. They get nervous and defensive, saying that they are morally superior and attempt to shut down the conversation because of their inability to actually argue on the facts.

Speaking of which, I wasn't under the impression that Darwin's theory of natural and sexual selection was "pseudoscience." Why is it ok to look at slight variations within species of, say, rats but not humans? For all you people will tell me until you're blue in the face that racial differences are the result of "culture," from whence does culture come? It isn't some magical external force --- it too arises from our genetic code. Intrinsically (slightly) different people interacting with various environments will produce cultures that reflect those tendencies, not the other way around. Nice touch conflating that with eugenics.

I wouldn't dream of censoring a viewpoint other than my own. When it comes to racists, it's usually more effective to let them spout. Give 'em enough rope and they'll hang themselves.

And if one doesn't think invoking Darwin to justify a philosophy of intrinsic differences in intelligence between socially constructed "racial groups" is pseudoscience, then they've proven their own ignorance. And, yes, such talk does bring to mind the arguments of the old eugenicists. The only conflation here is that which links biology and sociocultural predjudices.

People who think that racism in America is a thing of the past need only look at some of the responses to this article to see that racist attitudes are alive and well, and that like creationism, are often justified with the misappropriated language of science. The lipstick on the pig, if you will.