The racism is not a red herring, it's the primary driver for the electorate demanding that the system be broken in the ways it is. It's used to argue that the victims of the system deserve it, and thereby to prevent change.
"Racism" isn't merely a buzzword or an excuse if it's actually a historic and ongoing phenomenon.
We seem to be telling people of certain races that they are born disadvantaged, that they are somehow second-class citizens and not fully responsible for their actions or outcome of their life. We then distribute aid and provide services based not only on economic or educational status, but also on race, and we form organizations to benefit members of that race. We become outraged when their rights are violated (but no so much when the rights of members of another race are).
I don't think we'll truly eliminate racism in our society if we continue to focus on race the way we are. Instead we need to care just as much about the rights (or the violations of those rights) of a black man as we do a white man (or any other race). Race needs to not be considered when creating programs to benefit the poor or uneducated. After all, shouldn't a poor white man be just as entitled to our compassion and assistance as an equally poor black man?
Martin Luther King said "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character." For me, that cuts both ways. Not only should we not be judged unfairly in a court of law or be treated different by police because of the color of one's skin. It should be a non-factor in determining any sort of benefit or assistance as well.
We should be focusing on helping someone because they are poor, because they are unjustly treated like criminals or because they have few opportunities to succeed, not because they are black or of a certain race.
Have you ever had to apply for any sort of public assistance? The process is tremendously slow, complex, and bureaucratic, driven largely by layers of demands for proof that the aid is actually necessary. The basic takeaway of this process for the person in need isn't feeling like a victim, but rather feeling like society assumes you're a lazy thief.
If a person is in the same circumstances, economic or otherwise, as another person, why should I only give aid to one of those people based on their race? How would restricting a scholarship to white students be less racist than restricting a scholarship to african-american students?
And sure, you can bring up some scholarship as an exception that proves the rule (I wonder how Daughters of the American Revolution scholarships fit?). But that's a very weak argument. I'm talking about the welfare state in general, and it is pointedly not about race.
Some quick googling shows results of what appears to be private organizations solely focused on providing assistance to african americans or people of african descent. [2]
[1] - https://www.scholarships.com/financial-aid/college-scholarsh... [2] http://www.diversitybestpractices.com/news-articles/20-afric...
There are excellent arguments that the welfare state structure is a significant cause of racial inequality. But your "teaches them to be victims" argument is not one of them.
A much more interesting and defensible argument would be that the welfare state in its current incarnation punishes people for getting off of welfare. If the "reward" for finding a job is to take away aid on a 1:1 basis, why would getting a job be a good idea? Another interesting angle is the fact that minimum wage is not sufficient to keep a family out of poverty - especially when you throw in the costs of transportation and child care associated with a job.
To find the racial problem, look at history. When the welfare state first came into existence, racism had kept the black community in deep poverty, so poverty was already unevenly distributed. Since the welfare system merely treats the symptoms rather than the causes of poverty, the disparity has continued. And the disparity is driven not by welfare, but rather by institutional racism.
There was a great photo by a trio of black artists at the Henderson protests. It was a black woman dressed as a slave, a shirtless black man wearing a noose, and a black man in an orange prison jumpsuit, standing together - the history of institutional racism in America.
If racism is _the_ problem, why does it produce perfectly antipodal outcomes for different "people of color"? i.e. Asians are economically ascendant (surpassing whites on most metric), while blacks, well... you get the idea.
Rubbing the amulet of "structural racism" so much has entirely debased the term.
Hint: one history includes codified discrimination until ~50 years ago and legal enslavement until ~150 years ago and the other one doesn't. Well, I'll give you that Asian Americans faced codified discrimination into the 20th century, but don't overlook the "antipodal" patterns of how each ethnic group came to be in America.
Hint 2: Asian Americans came over, at a minimum, in indentured servitude.
Quod Erat Demondstrandum.
...and if he is right, then the reason why he's right will be useful for solving the problem. It's pretty tough to solve a problem when you don't understand what caused it.
By the way, dismiss identity politics at your risk. It might be uncomfortable to talk about, but it underpins a lot of current affairs: crime, Russia, Gamergate, ISIS.
Recommend reading this. It's long, but worth every painful line: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/good-men-project/why-its-so-ha...