This escalated quickly. But I would actually somewhat side with the commenters saying that it is odd to explicitly mention the race in the article. I get that it is Black History Month in the US and in that context it seems appropriate but I would question whether having a Black History Month is a good idea in the first place.

It is not obvious to me that explicitly pointing out a distinction is the best way to get rid of said distinction, be it black or white, male or female, gay or straight. It is a historical accident that one of the groups in each case was at a disadvantage in the past and that this continuous on to today with the gap narrowing slower than one may want.

So I understand that it seems warranted to give the disadvantaged group special attention to close the gap as fast as possible. But does this necessarily require pointing out the distinction in the way this article or Black History Month does? Sure, any program targeting a specific group can not totally avoid making use of the addressed distinction, but would it not be better to keep this as inconspicuous as possible?