This article is actually a critique of a different article - also written by UPenn law professors- with which 99% of is would agree. That article is linked in post #2, and is most definitely worth reading.
The basic premise of the article is that human commerce is a zero-sum game. You cannot create wealth, only take it away from others. So the poor sharecropper’s 1/4 of his cotton crop paid to the planter, who let him live in the shack and plant cotton, financed the mega-corporations that were the engine of the economic dynamo of the ‘50s, which made tons of money because the manufacturing bases of Europe and Asia were decimated by war. Viewed in this way, the connection between racism and bigotry and the success of the bourgeois work ethic make sense. Only viewing things in this way is lunacy. Do they really mean that hard work and studiousness and a serious mindset will not work unless you also lynch an occasional nigra? And lynching people and making them go to the back of the bus somehow enriches those not so singled out? Five Pennsylvania law professors and a San Diego dean have simultaneously become unhinged, and they are teaching the future politicians and lawyers of the world! Get your shotgun and year’s supply of canned goods, and find one of those abandoned sharecropper shacks.