But there is literally no reason to suspect that race has anything to do with A.O. Scott's opinion beyond the fact that Scott and Baker are white and the other artists mentioned are black.

"If our society has decided Ginger Baker is the equal of Max Roach, Art Blakey, and Elvin Jones, that's not giving the real credit where it is due" is not a nuanced point. That sentence is saying that if 'society' (now A.O. Scott speaks for society apparently) is just as big a fan of Ginger Baker as it is of Roach, Blakey, and Jones that is a problem because the latter artists are black and came first. It is also heavily implied that the only reason one could be of the opinion that Ginger Baker is worthy of being compared to those three is if one is racist. Which is an incredibly racist thing to say!

The title of the article is "Institutional Racism Redux."

"One of DTM's most controversial posts was from a little more than a year ago. "From the Ground Up" was a long response to a Nicholas Payton tweet. I thought Payton was intellectually lazy and rather provincial for going after Ben Ratliff and NY Times jazz coverage for being racist. I maintain that if you are a talented young black artist in New York, Ratliff and Nate Chinen will cover you: Indeed, they know the pitfalls of race history as much as any non-African American jazz writers I've ever read.

However, while I thought he had the wrong target, Payton (who's also an excellent musician) certainly has a larger point about historical critical practice -- and even current critical practice!"

He then goes on to discuss A.O. Scott's comments- the right target.

He's just saying it could be due to racism, and that one should be careful.

It's painfully obvious, as I hope the portions I have quoted make clear, that he is not saying it "could" be due to racism, that that it IS due to racism. Which is a stretch.