Biologists, after a long struggle, now universally accept that it makes no sense to classify humans as other than apes. Our nearest relatives, chimps and bonobos, split off from our ancestral line about 6 million years ago, and they are apes. Gorillas split off earlier, orang-utans earlier still, and all are apes. A concept called monophyly says that any biological taxon must have a common ancestor, and all descendants of that common ancestor must belong to that taxon. Thus there is no allowable classification that makes chimps, gorillas and orang-utans apes and humans something else.
I doubt either this larval Reichardt or the twit(s) who maintain UNL-haters have a clue about any of this, but in fact our best estimate is that, under the fairly unlikely assumptions that Michelle Obama is 100% of West-African ancestry and Reichardt's ancestors all hail from somewhere in Central Europe, we all shared a common ancestor no more than a couple of hundred thousand years ago, assuming Mr. Reichardt has no Neanderthal genes (and I hope he hasn't, because I rather like Neanderthals). That would say that we are all about 30 times more closely related to each other than to any other ape. Humans, according to biology, are actually not a very diverse species. If only there were some Neanderthals or Denisovians to give us a truly diverse perspective in our college classes!
You object, as a multiculturally-educated postmodernist, that African Americans have historically been denigrated (oops!) by comparison with apes, in the sense of non-human apes, and so it's racist to continue to make that comparison. Indeed they have. So have Darwinians, the Irish, Slavs, Jews, and probably if you look carefully enough, any group that fell afoul of any other group. We apes can be pretty nasty.
But isn't it pretty obvious Mr. Reichardt's intent was racist? Well, no, not if you don't possess mind-reading abilities. UNL-haters, like almost all of the left, inevitably end up having to make the claim they know what other people are thinking. They don't.
What point am I trying to make here? First, that even things that are 'obviously' racist often don't hold up under any sort of objective analysis. And second, being 'racist/sexist/homophobic/transphobic' isn't the only or even the worst way to be obnoxious.