Couple of things that stood out to me — not that they are specific to this particular article at all; the article just restated them thus reminding me of my earlier thoughts.
> Many laypeople incorrectly define racism as the explicit endorsement of racial bias (Sommers & Norton, 2006). While this type of “old-fashioned” racism is less prevalent today, scholars posit that racism has shifted into more subtle and “underground” forms since it is no longer culturally endorsed to express explicitly racist ideas (Bonilla-Silva, 2018).
Oh, so there are a correct and incorrect definitions, are there? Not "we work within a framework that defines x as y"; but rather "your definition is wrong"?
> Many readers might have a reaction to calling this “racism” in the therapy room, while to them it might look more like questions or misunderstandings related to race. This resistance to the word “racism” likely comes from the reductive binary of “racist = bad, not racist = good” that has been a defining cultural feature of our society for decades (DiAngelo, 2012).
Yep; and those who are using this word are usually relying on the violent emotionally charged associations that it produces due to this "reductive binary". People are hurling this word around as an insult; people are scared to be called this word, because they or their peer groups and societal institutions interpret it as a despicable evil.
Which makes me wonder why, if the academics who are advancing the new sociopolitical discourse had honest intentions, did they choose to reuse a word that meant something different than what they talk about.