You and I probably agree on the principle. I just want to call attention that this sort of snipe doesn't communicate well, in my opinion. I feel like the term racism has been split between race-based bigotry (which most people argue when they say "I'm not racist!") and supporting systems which encourage systemic preferences for certain groups. As I mention in another comment, I wish I understood this topic more, because the latter definition appears to be where folks are complaining about affirmative action since the end-state metrics aren't well defined (or maybe they are, but aren't well communicated?).
> supporting systems which encourage systemic preferences for certain groups
The newest definition is "systems that do not ensure equal outcomes between ethnic groups".
I'm sure you can discern the dark side of that statement. The idea is that we should ignore the problem at the source - injustice, unequal treatment, real racism (by your first definition) -- and instead correct it via racial quotas wherever there's supposed to be an objective, impartial test of one's fitness for a role.
One of the USA's great mottos used to be "equal opportunity". Not anymore, sadly -- between nepotism, promised donations, and racial quotas it's become nigh on impossible for some otherwise highly qualified but poor kids to go to an ivy-league school.
I get your confusion on the topic. But your approach fails to consider that the removal of privilege of a socially preferred group feels like discrimination to members of that group. This means the nuance is a distinction with difference.
