"that was no doubt due" is an ambiguous phrase. A consequence always has multiple but-for causes. We usually try to categorize causes by culpability, but even t

"that was no doubt due" is an ambiguous phrase. A consequence always has multiple but-for causes. We usually try to categorize causes by culpability, but even then there can be multiple of the most culpable. Plus we don't always distinguish but-for from contributing causes. When someone says "no doubt due" I think people tend to assume but-for causation. But people who make the claim may not have intended that, even when they assume the opposite as listeners. In the next sentence the author uses the phrase "made it difficult", which to me has the effect of qualifying the previous claim, suggesting that "due" is not necessarily a but-for cause, but a notable contributing cause. I don't know what the authors intentions were, or even how much thought they put into it. And there are so many possible interpretations here, though undoubtedly many people will be primed to head down certain well-worn paths. I wouldn't get too hung up on it. I see this everywhere. I even see it in my own writing. If we're being charitable, we can just chalk it up to not having enough time. (And there's never enough time.) We can probably safely assume a predisposition to emphasize matters of racial inequality. (I haven't read the article, just the title and your excerpt.) But so what? The phrasing is ambiguous, which means it's not wrong on its face, nor is it necessarily lacking support. There's little reason to be anything less than charitable, lest we draw flawed conclusions of our own.