It is odd that proponents of systemic racism also usually claim to “follow the science”, because the theory of “systemic racism”, like most of critical race theory, is profoundly unscientific. The crux of the scientific method is that you propose a hypothesis and then seek to prove it false. If there is no way a hypothesis can be falsified even in principle, it is a matter of faith, not science. As I cannot think of any falsifiable hypothesis associated with the theory of “systemic racism”, let alone one that has convincing evidence in its favor, I consider it to fall into the realm of religion and not science.

Further, even disregarding its unfalsifiability, the alleged "evidence" for systemic racism that I have seen falls into two categories, neither of which are actually evidence of anything at all. First, people say that systemic racism is evidenced by their "lived experience". However, "lived experience" is just the woke way to say "unfalsifiable anecdotes". In reality, “lived experience”, like all unfalsifiable claims, means jack shit when it comes to finding the truth about anything other than than the state of mind of the person in question. If my “lived experience” is that the sky is purple, that isn’t valid evidence that the sky is actually purple, because my experience is purely subjective to me and as such unfalsifiable. During WWII, the German people’s “lived experience” was that they were winning the war based on Goebbels’ proclamations. Didn’t mean a thing. Would you take a Covid treatment based on people’s “lived experience” of its effectiveness or would you want clinical trials to find out the truth? Etc. Second, people argue that "systemic racism" is evidenced by unequal outcomes for black people in various metrics like education, income and incarceration. But these arguments are all causal fallacies. If you are going to argue that the fact that black Americans earn less on average than white Americans must be because of “systemic racism against black people”, you will have to explain why the fact that Indian-Americans, Chinese-Americans, Filipino-Americans, Indonesian-Americans and a number of other nonwhite ethnic groups earn more on average than white Americans is not likewise explained by “systemic racism against white people”. If you are going to argue that black people are incarcerated at a higher rate than white people is because of “systemic racism”, then you will have to explain why the fact that men are incarcerated at a higher rate than women is not explained by “systemic sexism” — or else acknowledge the causal fallacy in claiming that disparate outcomes must result from some kind of systemic discrimination as opposed to other factors. Further, even empirically there seems to be data that contradicts the theory of systemic racism. Why is it that, at least as of 2015, black immigrants, who are basically visually indistinguishable from African-Americans, earn 30% more on average than African-Americans (see, e.g., https://www.blackenterprise.com/black-immigrants-in-u-s-earning-30-more-than-u-s-born-blacks/)? Does systemic racism not apply to them for some reason? Finally, positing "systemic racism" violates Occam's Razor (which of course is not a hard and fast rule, but is a good general heuristic). I believe the phenomena I described above can all be explained without reference to systemic racism, so bringing in systemic racism just unnecessarily multiplies entities, in violation of Occam’s Razor.

In sum, based on all of this, I see no more reason to believe in the existence of “systemic racism” than I do in the existence of “the Flying Spaghetti Monster” -- i.e., it could be true, but there's no particular reason to believe it.