I have no problem with any organization declaring itself to be “anti-racist”, even though it’s almost nonsensically obvious. It would be like saying “We are against people who push other people down the stairs.” Well, yeah.
The problem, of course, is that these organizations then use “anti-racism” to viciously punish any who is not 100% PC.
It sure would be better if those organizations went for even a little balance, as in: “We are anti-racist. We are also very pro-free speech.”
The opposite of “racist” isn’t “not racist.” It is “anti-racist.” What’s the difference? One endorses either the idea of a racial hierarchy as a racist, or racial equality as an antiracist. One either believes problems are rooted in groups of people, as a racist, or locates the roots of problems in power and policies, as an anti-racist. One either allows racial inequities to persevere, as a racist, or confronts racial inequities, as an antiracist. There is no in-between safe space of “not racist.” The claim of “not racist” neutrality is a mask for racism. This may seem harsh, but it’s important at the outset that we apply one of the core principles of antiracism, which is to return the word “racist” itself back to its proper usage. “Racist” is not—as Richard Spencer argues—a pejorative. It is not the worst word in the English language; it is not the equivalent of a slur. It is descriptive, and the only way to undo racism is to consistently identify and describe it—and then dismantle it."
Source: Kendi, Ibram X., How To Be an Antiracist (p. 9). Random House. Kindle Edition.
Bold emphasis is mine.