Harold was partially correct - it depends on how it was actually worded, but it sounds like he was misinterpreting himself. Race has been, as Pierre notes below, rejected by the scientific community as a BIOLOGICAL distinction. This rejection is based on GENETIC research. This is a refutation of the concept, such as proposed in the book The Bell Curve, that there are significant genetic racial differences.

The concept that race is a SOCIAL CONSTRUCT is relevant and important. That is what we are talking about here. There are always going to be a few jerks who claim that, say, "Blacks are not as smart as Whites". But while that may be the basis of a few racist opinions, it is not true. What we are talking about today, the subject that drives the discourse about racial justice, is the social construct of race. It is the differences in the economic, political, sociological, judicial and other social outcomes that are being challenged. These are all social outcomes, not based on genetic differences. But there are dramatic differences in social outcomes between Whites and Blacks.

I have read here some people claiming that there is no such thing as "White". I don't know where that comes from, but I suspect that it is referring to there being Germans vs Swedes, Goths vs. Gauls, Southern Europeans vs. Northern Europeans. Fine, but then we should apply the same standard to Blacks, as there is just as much or more difference between Africans and African Amercans, between Masai and Himba, between Blacks in Western vs. Eastern Africa, between Hispanic Blacks and non-Hispanic Blacks. Yet in all these cases, genetic research finds almost no genetic difference between any of these categories.

It would be great if there would develop a consensus of terminology around this subject. We are just talking back and forth with each other and speaking different tongues.