Whenever the subject of "race" comes up, without a doubt, there is always a discussion of whether or not "races" exist, and every single time people are arguing apples and oranges. To some, race = phenotype and nothing else; race happens to be a convenient preexisting term to apply. However, to many, the term has sociological baggage that associates a particular phenotype with a particular cultural background. The latter is the old version that has dubious relevance to modern anthropology. However, to deny differences in phenotype is naiive; I think the physical differences between different groups of humans are utterly fascinating, and as an adaptationist, I find hypotheses that attempt to explain the origin of these differences just as fascinating (although these visual differences are often the most obvious things that racists latch onto, unfortunately). So, I dunno, just a suggestion: if you use the problematic term race, but mean phenotype - don't assume people are going to know what you mean.

As a scientist, I think political correctness goes too far in stifling the ability to talk about the physical diversity amongst modern human populations - yes, we're obviously all one species, but I don't think the discussion should just end there for fear of upsetting someone. From a totally objective standpoint, many features possibly represent adaptations in different groups (although admittedly, for some subtle differences the functional significance may be uncertain - which is a problem that plagues all who study functional anatomy of any animal group, not just humans) - examples include the carabelli cusp and spoon-shaped incisors of east Asian and Native American peoples, differences in nose and eye fold shape, etc. - we may not know what significance these features have, but they're the sorts of questions that fascinate physical anthropologists.