It's very hard to believe that this redefinition of the word racism was done innocently. On its face racism is act of distinguishing people by race for favor or disfavor. When it is redefined as it has been in the humanities it leaves a vacuum. There's no longer a word for the concept that racism originally referred to.

It's not taking anything away--both definitions are valid and commonly used. It's just up to the pair of you to realize you're talking past each other. She'd probably have no trouble agreeing that white people can be the target of bigotry just as you'd agree that white people are rarely at the pointy end of broader systemic injustices, at least in this society.

Much as it may be fun, I'd caution against attributing it some kind of conspiracy of sociologists.

> both definitions are valid and commonly used

In my experience there's one definition used by the general public, and another used by social justice warrior academic types to prove they have a more mindful world view than you. But that's just my experience.

There needn't be a conspiracy. An evolved motte-and-bailey strategy is bad enough as it is.

Discrimination is a pretty good word. That's the one they use for things like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-discrimination_law

Its true there is no single word, but I think in this circle they use terms for this. Racial discrimination or prejudice.

Not that I completely disagree; but the problem with this definition, on a practical level, is that it seems to cause more harm than good. Identity politics have prevented our country from having an actual conversation on race since those of us in the majority are effectively not allowed into the conversation. So if there are two sides of an issue and one side is not allowed in the discussion then there is . . . no discussion.