Unfortunately, this topsy-turvy point of view has become part of our jurisprudence. In the case of Ricci v. DeStefano, 557 U.S. 557 (2009), the Supreme Court held that a city had to award fire-captain positions according to a multiple-choice test which was admittedly discriminatory, and never shown to have any relation to real-world job qualifications, simply because white applicants relied on the test and studied for it. The Court justified this result in order to avoid “upsetting an employee’s legitimate expectation not to be judged on the basis of race” which would be “antithetical to the notion of a workplace where individuals are guaranteed equal opportunity regardless of race.” 557 U.S. 557, 585.

The Trump-dominated court is now prepared to go even further, and dismantle the "Disparate Impact" doctrine, which was the main legal tool used to challenge racist practices (as opposed to dealing with discrimination on an individual-by-individual basis).

Thank you for highlighting the upside-down logic of equating anti-racism with racism in this article. Hopefully it will open real discussion towards solving the problems, rather than just flinging slogans to satisfy our emotions.

Fighting systemic racism means changing the system itself. It is a problem of society to be solved, not of individual debts to be paid. Only when we attack racism as a matter of public policy will we once again make any progress against it.

https://medium.com/@qcp/why-our-laws-against-discrimination-have-failed-a85c4e83a6d4