Asterisk: They probably are using the "new" definition of racism, not the classical definition. The foundation of the "anti-racist" definition is that in any si

Asterisk: They probably are using the "new" definition of racism, not the classical definition. The foundation of the "anti-racist" definition is that in any situation, a difference in outcomes has a single attribution: racism. As an example, if you give 100 children a math test -- no word problems, just algebra -- and find that there is any correlation between skin color and test performance, then the test itself must be racist, and perhaps even math itself. Similarly here, if there is a difference in how cancer affects people... what must be the cause? That's right! Racism™! This is a patently absurd understanding of racism, but I've found it extremely helpful to start discussions like these by pointing out that if we don't have a common definition of what it means for something to be racist, then we can't have a discussion about it. PS: The classical definition of racism is the idea that skin color is indicative of performance. To look at the students before or after the test takes place, and make the assumption that skin color will effect performance. The extremely fine point here is that *the skin color itself* is what will cause (or caused) the difference.