[JohnBooty]

    But I wish there was another word for it, 
    or that racism were not used interchangeably 
    with systemic racism.

I understand both sides of the argument.

Many people learned an overly simplistic definition of "racism" at some point. Essentially, "overt racism" or "active racism" -- using slurs, joining the KKK, refusing to hire people of a certain race, etc.

Anything less overt than this is not "racism" to them. Having generally steered clear of such actions in their lives, they are dismayed to consider the possibility that there are a lot of other institutions and individual actions that are racist.

We could invent a new term for "systemic racism." But, ultimately, it's still racism. To the people experiencing it, it has the same net result as other forms of racism. If a white person in a predominantly white society doesn't hire you because you're non-white, there's no material difference to you whether that person did it for overt, conscious reasons or otherwise. That is why is it is useful to think of systemic racism as racism, rather than inventing a new word for it.

Here's an interesting thought experiment. Think of the people in your life who are vehemently opposed to the use of the term "racism" to include systemic racism. Suppose we actually did invent a new term for systemic racism so that they could feel more comfortable. How do we think these people would respond?

I think a significant number of them would complain about the new term just as much. I can hear them now in my mind. "First we have to worry about being 'racist', now we have to worry about $SOME_NEW_TERM!?!? What will 'they' think of next?!?"

Because it's not really about words for them. It's about a refusal to examine their own actions.

[rayiner]

The distinction isn’t between overt and passive. The traditional definition of “racism” still includes “implicit bias.”

The recent distinction is between “prejudice” and “effect on racial equity.” Ibram Kendi distills the view quite clearly. He explains that the lower tax rate for capital gains is “racist.” He doesn’t say it’s motivated by racial prejudice (either overt or implicit), or deny that it’s nearly universal in the developed world, including in non-white countries. What he means is that the tax preference has the effect of delivering more benefits to white people because white people are more likely to own capital assets.

In the traditional view, by contrast, racism is a mental state—it’s an attitude that’s held by people, whether consciously or unconsciously.

Studies show that these attitudes, what’s now called “prejudice,” is probably overstated and isn’t the dominant driver of racial differences: https://www.chronicle.com/article/can-we-really-measure-impl....

The recent approach has been to reuse “racism” to refer to systems that create or perpetuate racial disparities whether or not they’re motivated by what’s now called prejudice.

An example of this usage is saying that “standardized testing is racist.” To people familiar with the traditional definition, this implies that test makers have racial prejudice and, consciously or unconsciously, designed tests to hinder minorities. Under the new definition, this just means that the practice of using standardized tests perpetuates racial disparities because it hurts students that have suffered disadvantages.

Of course we had words for this before. I studied what would now be called “environmental racism” in law school. We would say “minority communities suffer disproportionately negative effects from the siting of coal plants.” We don’t need to come up with a new term for this, as you speculate. That’s a concept I could easily explain to my Trump-voting in laws and they’d get it. But when you call that “racism” that implies (not only to my in laws, but to my Biden voting non-white dad) that people involved in the siting decisions were motivated by racial prejudice. They’d say, “no, they’re just putting the coal plant where the land is cheapest.” Under the traditional view, a decision like that based on purely objective, relevant, non-race factors can’t be “racist” because that concept refers to a state of mind (whether overt or implicit).

Now, there is a logic to academics and activists using the term “racism” for that. As you observe, the effect on the groups themselves is similar. Most important, by framing “racism” in terms of effects rather than mental state, it forces a consideration of racial equity impacts on otherwise race-neutral policies.

[JohnBooty]

That is one of the best and most succinct descriptions I've read. Bravo.

I mean that sincerely. I'm afraid it may read as sarcasm, but it is not.

    Of course we had words for this before. I studied 
    what would now be called “environmental racism” 
    in law school. We would say “minority communities 
    suffer disproportionately negative effects from 
    the siting of coal plants.”

“Minority communities suffer disproportionately negative effects from the siting of coal plants” is a nice description of that specific thing. What about more general construction and zoning choices that aren't about coal plants? What about systemic practices in general that have disproportionately negative effects on minorities? I don't feel we had an overarching term for those phenomena, besides "rascism." Language, but not a term.

    The recent approach has been to reuse “racism” to refer to 
    systems that create or perpetuate racial disparities whether 
    or not they’re motivated by what’s now called prejudice.

The approach has changed, but how much?

Whether the year is 1860 or 1960 or 2020, surely even the most fundamental understanding of racism has always required an understanding of both intent and effect.

When I was in school in the 1990s, we learned about the many "kindly" slaveowners who viewed themselves as benevolent caretakers of their slaves, whom they viewed as simple savages that would not prosper on their own. We learned how race-based humor could have innocent intent but negative consequences. And so on. The frequent dissonance between intent and effect was in my opinion vastly underemphasized, but this was not a new line of thought even 30 years ago.

    [The coal plant thing] is a concept I could easily explain 
    to my Trump-voting  in laws and they’d get it. But when you 
    call that “racism” that implies (not only to my in laws, but 
    to my Biden voting  non-white dad) that people involved in the 
    siting decisions were motivated by racial prejudice. They’d 
    say, “no, they’re just putting the coal plant where the land 
    is cheapest.”

The practical argument for calling this something other than "racism" is, essentially, that we need to make things more palatable for folks in order to help them understand the effects of their actions.

I would certainly agree that labeling such acts as racism precludes many people from understanding these concepts. We have been taught that racism is one of the greatest of transgressions and nobody wants to think of themselves as racist. I don't even think many members of white nationalist groups even consider themselves "racist."