Being as you forfeited this round, I can only assume you don't have a good argument against my points. I do realize that there are some cases that are definitely racist, but they are not to the same extent you are making it out to be. Another thing that should be recognized, is that putting skin color in a spectrum with regards to skin color would not avoid this area, in fact it will create a stigma around having a racist option. For this argument, I would like to list a few pros to making the change and clarify what it means to have skin color as a spectrum.
When I was a young kid, on the bus I asked the question "Why is he Black." It was a perfectly innocent question but I felt ashamed of it for years after when I was told about it. In truth, it is a question that should be answered without any shame, just like the question "why is the sky blue." Based on science, we know that skin color is genetic based on where someone's ancestors lived and the color moves in a gradient depending on how close those people lived from the equator. Being able to look at skin color as a spectrum brings understanding to people, especially children, that skin color is not something to be ashamed to ask about, but rather a natural thing that can be explained by natural means.
In terms of skin color, currently there are two different methods that I'm aware of that describe the spectrum. Von Luschan's chromatic scale (VLS) is one which divides skin color into 36 classifications, but was largely abandoned in favor of the Fitzpatrick scale developed in 1975 which divides skin color into 6 different classifications. These classifications were divided to describe the different ways skin reacts to UV light. Being as skin color plays an important role in the protection against skin cancer, people with darker the pigment is the less there is a risk of developing it. This is something that should be important to consider, as currently 1 in 5 Americans will develop skin cancer over their lifetime. This is along with over 15,000 deaths and over three billions in medical costs a year. Being as this is the case, an added benefit of teaching about skin color will decrease the medicinal costs placed on the taxpayer as people will be better informed how to care for their body. This is along with decreasing a stigma around having different skin color, as the idea can be understood in a more scientific way
To conclude, while we might still have a racial issues that need to be addressed, classify people based on the spectrum of skin color will make us more aware color-aware of the fact that we are different, but that's not a bad thing as even though we are different the differences are not as big as we make them out to be. By doing this we can decrease the stigma around the idea and increase awareness when people might differentiate based on what in reality is just a biological change to adapt to our past environments.
Sources
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitzpatrick_scale
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Von_Luschan%27s_chromatic_scale
https://www.arpansa.gov.au/sites/g/files/net3086/f/legacy/pubs/RadiationProtection/FitzpatrickSkinType.pdf
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3709783/#!po=28.6458
Sure, plainly to increment my comment quantity, an affirmative tone is intended.
I am referring to the 34 skin colors within Von Luschan's chromatic scale. Fitzpatrick only classifies skin color based on 6 which are a derivative spectrum of those. This scale is the one more commonly used, and I believe would be more accepted by the educational system as it would be easier to understand.
Really?
https://www.verywellhealth.com/fitzpatrick-classification-scale-1069226
I heard only 2 dimensions were used, not six.
That is a valid question, the most commonly accepted option is the Fitzpatrick scale developed in 1975 which classifies skin color into 6 different color spectrums.
Great, my skin color is #1f1e33. Don't use general color terms like "white" or "red", use your phone and check the hex code instead!
(I made up that hex code, idk what it is)