You're treating this as if blacks and whites are somehow symmetrical in the context of American society. No serious social scientist would treat the two expressed views as equivalent.
this is gold, seriously
I think you're attacking a strawman image of social science that's been constructed by people who really have no clue. That's not to say that the social sciences aren't plagued by many methodological problems, but we actually do know quite a lot.
What I always find amusing is how conservatives get mad that liberals are so sensitive to "taking offense", when the exact opposite is true. It's just that conservatives apply their own ethical perspective (where intent and feeling matter a lot) on the liberal view, and then think that the conclusion does not follow or is unfair. But the conclusions are a consequence of a completely different ethical framework, where they do make sense precisely because to liberals, the intent to harm and the feeling of being hurt don't matter as much as they do to conservatives, and what matters is the global effect actions have.
To a conservative, being racist means feeling negatively about other races or intending to harm them. To a liberal, being racist means taking any action that increases or perpetuates the actual harm done to certain races regardless of feelings or intentions.
Social scientists use the definition I attributed to liberals, because those of them who study racism are not ethicists and don't attempt to determine which ethical perspective is more "correct"; instead, they care about actual changes in society, and the truth is that the social effect of white people (we're always talking statistics -- again this is social science, not ethics -- so it's white people one average or as a group) discriminating against blacks is far more detrimental than the other way around (because whites possess more power), and therefore more racist. It is more "wrong" if your ethical perspective is not subjective but objective, and judges not intent but outcome.