She explains what she calls ‘racism’ this way: ‘the question is not “did racism take place?” but instead “how did racism manifest in this situation?”’ In other words, all situations contain racism, and it is up to the anti-racist activist to uncover it. To do anything else is described as — you guessed it — being a ‘racist’ by upholding ‘racism’.
We assume that you're guilty to start with. That saves us the trouble of dealing with people who say they aren't racist as if we should believe them.
The article also includes an application of the logic I find appealing: ‘White fragility’ is therefore a charge that cannot be denied and thus separates all white people into two categories: racists (who admit it) and racists (who are too fragile) to admit it. ... An identical argument could be made about literally any position: there are two types of people — Trump supporters who admit it and Trump supporters who are too afraid to admit it; those who claim they don’t like pancakes and those who are too deceitful to tell the truth that pancakes are awful; witches who confess and witches who are too in league with the devil to admit it.
All by itself, this is a reason to think about subscribing to the Spectator when they decide to make subscriptions available.
UPDATE: To those who argue that systemic racism is holding down black and brown people, I merely refer them to this. Case made, case closed.