I have taught logic and critical thinking at Sonoma State University in California for the past 20 years. You can check my C.V. if you are really interested. https://sonoma.academia.edu/TeedRockwell/CurriculumVitae

I realize that what you meant to say was “Not all Whites are Racist”. What I was saying was that your two premises did not lead to that conclusion. Whether your conclusion is true or not is a different question from whether your argument is valid. This is a common error that a lot of smart people make, because most people don’t study logic any more. I think your conclusion is true, at least by the ordinary definition of “racist”. But that’s irrelevant to the question of whether your argument is valid or not. A valid argument can be made with false premises and a false conclusion. “All parakeets are physicists, All physicists are tap dancers; therefore All parakeets are tap dancers” is a valid argument, because if both premises were true, the conclusion would have to be true. When you try to show that your argument is valid by arguing that your conclusion is true, you are completely missing the point I was making.

Conversely, an invalid argument can have a true conclusion by luck. That’s basically what you have in your comment. That argument of yours is in standard Aristotelian form, it’s not just a rhetorical flourish. There is only one possible conclusion that can logically be derived from it: Some racists are not white. If you want another conclusion, you have to come up with another argument. The laws of logic are as immutable as the laws of Arithmetic and the conclusion you drew from those premises was as erroneous as claiming that 2 and 2 equals 5. I’m not trying to flame you for this, I just thought that because you expressed an admiration for critical thinking and logic, you would want to know that you had made a mistake.

If I understand you correctly, the arguments you are making in the rest of the post are not really logical arguments. They are inductive arguments based on experience (“I know a lot of white people who aren’t racist”). Those are probably the best of kind of arguments to support your conclusion, but they only deliver probable truths, not necessary truths, so they can’t be translated into logical form. You could bring logic in if you stated some part of the definition of racism: something like “No Racists are Affirmative Action supporters,, some White People are Affirmative Action supporters, therefore Some White people are not Racists”. Then the argument would productively shift to whether the first premise is part of our shared agreement on the meaning of the word “racism”. I don’t think we have that kind of agreement anymore. The Wokerati are trying to come up with a different definition of racist which would make every white person racist, and if you try to argue with them using the traditional meaning of “racism”, you will talk past each other.