Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) became the subject of severe criticism last week when excerpts containing his comments on Obama’s skin color leaked from a forthcoming book dealing with the 2008 campaign trail. While Reid has officially admitted to and apologized for his broadly construed statement, the issue of whether or not he was correct is still a matter of debate.

The book, John Heilemann and Mark Halperin’s “Game Change,” reports Reid saying that he “was wowed by Obama’s oratorical gifts and believed that the country was ready to embrace a black presidential candidate, especially one such as Obama-a ‘light-skinned’ African American ‘with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one,’ as he later put it privately.”

Upon the book’s Jan. 12 release, the comment sparked a media fiasco. Republicans were outraged, declaring the comment as racially charged in hopes to use it as a foothold against a heavily sided Democratic Senate. Senator John Cornyn (R-Texas), the chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, said in a statement that Reid should resign, calling his comments “embarrassing and racially insensitive.”

Yet, when Reid apologized to President Obama, calling his remarks “improper” and “a poor choice of words,” to the shock of some, Obama graciously accepted.

“I accepted Harry’s apology without question because I’ve known him for years, I’ve seen the passionate leadership he’s shown on issues of social justice, and I know what’s in his heart,” said Obama in his statement.

However, while Obama’s friendly pardon may have saved Reid from repercussions in the Senate, the question of whether his comments had any validity to them remains to be formally addressed. Notably, they were politically incorrect and somewhat old-fashioned – but if the very person offended is willing to accept the apology, is there still room for controversy?

James Shields, director of the Bonner Center for Community Learning, doesn’t think so.

“People need to be able to differentiate between someone being racist and someone simply making an observation about race,” said Shields.

He notes that “colorism” – the preferential treatment of light-skinned African Americans over darker skinned – has long been a trend in the United States.

And the sociologists seem to agree – by the journal-load. A study published in 2006 by Ph.D. students at the University of Georgia found quantifiable evidence that those with lighter skin tones often receive preferential treatment in the work force, both in terms of hiring and promotion. Other studies have shown that this sort of discrimination, or colorism, can often operate within the same race.

So, while Harry Reid’s comments may have been a faux pas, at least they are backed by research.

“I don’t think the comment exposes Reid as a racist at all,” said Shields.

Shields believes that the majority of the African American community agrees with what Reid said and does not see a problem with his comment.

“If [Reid’s] comment becomes a catalyst for more frank discussions about race in this country,” said Shields, “then I welcome it.