Such an argument pretty much necessitates an unpleasant exemplar.
Read the obituary of Bob Randall currently on their front page for one instance of the Economist decrying institutional racism in a thoroughly heartfelt manner.
At the start of this thread, others had tried to make your voice irrelevant by down-voting your comment. Presumably because they disagreed with you. More recently, I have received down-votes against my first reply to you. In both cases, (and for the same reasons as this discussion) I think it would have been better for those who disagreed to say why they disagreed, not to attempt to shut down dissent. Disagreement is fine, as long as it is in the open. Silencing critics (jerks even) may feel good at the time, but the precedent is insidious.
Did you read that obit yet? http://www.economist.com/news/obituary/21653997-bob-randall-... Adjusted your view of TE editorial policy on racism after doing so?