You’re playing a lot of pretty dicey games with statistics there, aren’t you, my friend?

• You write, “Despite the fuss about affirmative action, white students still receive 76% of all university funding.” First of all, white students are over 60% of the university population, so that number isn’t as crazy as you’re trying to make it seem. Second, to make this number meaningful, you’d have to compare it with the % of students applying for university funding, broken down by race. It is reasonable to speculate that white students are more likely to apply. You can’t just jump to the conclusion that racism is involved. A simple solution to this issue, by the way, is to make awards of financial aid totally race-blind, so that these kinds of decisions should be made without the decision-makers knowing the applicant’s race or name … which should be done for college admissions in general, and then you wouldn’t have this problem where “Asians need SAT scores 140 points higher than whites, 270 points higher than Hispanics, and an incredible 450 points higher than blacks (out of 1,600 points) to get into these [selective private universities]. An Asian applicant with an SAT score of 1,500, that is, has the same chance of being accepted as a white student with a 1,360, a Latino with a 1,230, or an African-American with a 1,050. Among candidates in the highest (1,400–1,600) SAT range, 77 percent of blacks, 48 percent of Hispanics, 40 percent of whites, and only 30 percent of Asians are admitted.” See http://www.city-journal.org/html/fewer-asians-need-apply-14180.html..
• You write, “If you’re a white student, you’re 40% more likely to get private scholarship than a minority student.” Same problem. This number by itself is meaningless. You need to compare it with the % applying for such scholarships in the first place.
• You write, “African Americans and whites use drugs at similar rates, but the imprisonment rate of African Americans for drug charges is almost 6 times that of whites; African Americans represent 12.5% of illicit drug users, but 29% of those arrested for drug offenses and 33% of those incarcerated in state facilities for drug offenses.” First of all, your claim of “similar rates” is not quite right. See here. Second, you have to ask why these rates are different. For example, as this Human Rights Watch report discusses, much of the disparity is driven by the fact that (i) cops generally police poor urban areas, where most of the crime is, and such areas are the ones most likely to be occupied by blacks; and (ii) a lot of drug use/sales by blacks occurs outdoors, while use/sales by whites occurs indoors. Obviously, it’s much easier to catch such use/sales and make arrests outdoors. Speaking anecdotally, as I walk around the streets of New York, the incidence of blacks using marijuana out in the open is extremely, extremely high and getting higher (personally, I don’t support marijuana use even being a crime, but given that it is one …). As far as incarceration rates, you also have to look at recidivism rates and prior convictions, which often result in mandatory minimums under federal sentencing guidelines. Are blacks more likely to be serial offenders and, thus, to be getting prison time or longer sentences and, as a result, more likely to be serving (more) time for the same crimes? I’ve seen evidence suggesting this is the case.

My point is that you have to be careful throwing around these kinds of numbers, and there’s unfortunately a very big bias in sociology departments right now to jump to conclusions that racism is to blame for everything, while studies supporting the opposite conclusion are likely to be unfunded, blackballed or not even attempted in the first place. This is not surprising since left-leaning sociologists outnumber right-leaning sociologists by a factor of 44 to 1. You can’t trust the numbers coming out of these departments, in other words. You have to use your own critical thinking skills. The whole myth of an epidemic of disproportionate shootings of unarmed blacks, for instance, is an instance of such junk science that I’ve discussed here previously. The widespread myth of “implicit bias” has also been thoroughly debunked, and yet few in the mainstream media seem to have noticed or cared.

As for the definition of “racism,” you can argue that it should be redefined, as you do, but my first point in the article you responded to is that the claim that prejudice+power simply is the definition of “racism” is demonstrably false, and I don’t think you’ve specifically taken issue with that. My second point was that trying to redefine “racism” the way you and others are suggesting would create problems in trying to analyze power dynamics to ascertain whether or not racism exists, and those power dynamics are debatable and ever-shifting and very context-dependent. People distort reality and lie with statistics all the time, as I’ve tried to suggest, and you can’t just throw out a few numbers and say, “See, blacks are still overwhelmingly the victims of racism in America.” There’s no question that blacks in America face racism, and there’s also no question that racism against whites in America is completely blatant and out in the open at this point. In my view, racism is racism and should be disfavored in any form and against any group, and that’s a principle we should all be standing up for. As I’ve discussed here, I’m against the very notion of “race” and think it just creates many more problems than it solves and keeps fanning the flames of racism, no matter how it’s deployed. Playing word games by trying to redefine the word “racism” isn’t going to fix the underlying issue or gaslight white people into thinking that racism against them doesn’t exist.