It is wrong. But, it is diminishing. This makes it less useful as a political tool.
Because of this, it is being redefined. As redefined, an act done by a person of one race can be a racist act, but the same act done by a person of another race cannot be a racist act. Those who would control the system are redefining the term so that they can discriminate against a race without it being called racism.
Also, it is being exaggerated. We keep hearing about "systemic racism." And yet, our American systems are anti-racist across the board. Every corporation of size big enough to have an HR department, every school (public or private), and every government agency is systemically anti-racist. People point to statistical aggregations of non-systemic racism, and say, "See?! Systemic racism!" But, what they are pointing to is not system racism. Rather, it is either (i) aggregations of individual instances of non-systemic racism, or (ii) mere statistical data collected to show that one group is not as successful as the other (not that that group was actually discriminated against...it correlation, not causation, because they can't show causation).
I don't think we need a national program to stamp out racism. We need to keep doing what we are doing. We are now the least racist country we have ever been.
But, we do need to stop people from using racism as a political lever. That is a favorite of the Dems, which is why they find racism everywhere, even where it does not exist. And, as part of that, we need to stop fanning the flames of racism...finding racism where it does not exist (e.g., a cop shooting a person resisting arrest).
And, we need to not implement a new, truly systemic form of racism, as Jason Whitlock points out. The redefinition point I raised above is what allows discrimination again. California is about to repeal its anti-racism law (it is on the ballot in the next election) so that it can discriminate against successful minority groups. We need to stop that initiative.