Now, the context.
Derb set up the piece by saying that he was giving his own version of "the talk," through which black parents supposedly warn their children to be extra careful around cops and white people generally, because whites are always looking for excuses to harm black people.
Before he got to the language you quoted, he said the following:
"The default principle in everyday personal encounters is, that as a fellow citizen, with the same rights and obligations as yourself, any individual black is entitled to the same courtesies you would extend to a nonblack citizen. This is basic good manners and good citizenship."
Derb goes on, however, to state that in the aggregate our black population has a greater than average disposition toward certain types of hostile and antisocial behavior, up to and including violence. He says that while such aggregate facts do not describe the behavior of all individuals, they justify some amount of caution. He then mimics the black parents' "talk" to point out ways of avoiding unpleasantness when encountering our black fellow citizens.
Is this bigotry? I suppose it's a matter of taste, but it hardly satisfies the usual definition of a strong opinion maintained in spite of evidence to the contrary. Derb explains the basis for his views with care.
Also, although Derb believed what he was saying and hasn't apologized for it, he was also using a little rhetorical ju-jitsu. He was saying that if black people are wary of white people, as they claim and as liberals applaud them for saying, then there are equal or stronger reasons for white people to be wary of black people. As Derb says, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't treat black people as fellow citizens with the same rights and obligations as ourselves.
Is it possible to disagree with Derb (nothing wrong with that) without calling him a bigot? Isn't name calling the default reflex of the left? Do we have to join them?