Thank you for your comment. You and I seem to have somewhat differing ideas about where racism resides in our society, and how the good of the individual vs. the group should be weighed.

I’m not totally sure what you mean when you mention non-white people being targeted exclusively within institutions. Perhaps you mean that they’re targeted by individuals employed in those institutions, such as in legal institutions or in housing. It’s understandable that some would see that as being systemic/institutional racism if there are correlations between one’s race and outcomes. However, it would be more correct, in my view, to call that interpersonal racism, or social racism as you refer to it. Such racism can be either an overt behavior or, I grant, a conditioned behavior. Personally, I would like to see the word limited exclusively to the former.

The problem with calling that systemic racism is that, by its wording, it casts blame in the wrong place. “Systemic racism” must mean racism which either is established as an inherent part of the system — e.g. segregation — or occurs incidentally alongside the system’s workings. In the latter case, is it really fair to use that term? Does the system encompass individual behaviors and biases? If so, you could apply the term to just about any organization even if just a minuscule number of people in it hold such biases. With regard to our legal system specifically, of course there are people within it who are racially biased — it’s too big for there not to be. But not every black person is unjustly sentenced, nor is every white person justly sentenced. Also, we have to consider factors such as the concentration of black Americans in densely-populated areas, as well as the disparity of wealth between racial groups. Those I would argue are more significant reasons for why a third of the US prison population is black.

Now, regarding affirmative action, you mention its benefit in promoting more compassion and helping people work together better. I can see where you’re coming from there, because I myself like diverse environments. It’s certainly more interesting than being among a whole crowd of people just like me. But I must admit, I do a mental head shake when I read reviews on job sites complaining about a business’ lack of diversity. Diversity might be colorful — even enlightening — but if a workplace happens to be 95% percent white, you accept it like a mature person. The level of diversity should not affect a person’s opinion of the business or the people who work there. Accordingly, whatever benefits you may derive from AA, they cannot overrule the individual.

You said that AA should be narrowly-tailored in terms of race-consciousness. I’d agree with that, though I’m not sure if my definition of “narrow” matches yours. The closest thing to race-based AA I would endorse is a version designated for victims of segregation and their descendants. That wouldn’t necessarily be “race-based” because, obviously, it wouldn’t apply to all blacks in this country. Even then, we would need to ensure that such AA was not forever extended to the deserving black families. It could be difficult to ensure that since no one would want to become the villain, per se, by denying it to future descendants.

Anyway, I appreciate your thoughts and I welcome any further ones you may have here. Despite our differing views, it’s good that we both agree that the hyper-wokeness of today is a problem.