We don't do funding or make policy or structure laws or form groups based on hair color or eye color. You don't have a Democrat brunette caucus or brown-eyed caucus. You don't have laws for hate crimes against blue-eyed people or blonds. There is no affirmative action for tall people or short people, thin or fat. Nobody gets upset if you take Irish whiskey to a St. Patrick's Day party or kid a Scottsman about being miserly and there are no assumed PC standards associated with those ethnic groups.That's fair but how could you prove if a person was racist or not if it is based on what someone thinks? You could say, "You are racist because you think skin color is more important than eye color or hair color." The person could refute it by saying, "No. I do not think skin color is more important than hair color or eye color." Then you could say, "Yes. You do." They could further respond by saying, "No. I don't." Personally I don't think the definition that you make is any better than the dozens of definitions we currently have. We need a smoking gun so we can identify racists and stop making empty accusations and empty counter accusations. If that is your best suggestion then that is fine but I want to give you another chance to come up with something much more workable.
When skin color is the basis for hiring, firing, social interaction, policy, laws, organizations, what is and is not PC, then it is racist.
We are not racist when we are allowed to treat people just as well or as badly as we treat all people, don't have to watch what words we use or what stereotypes we use, then we are no longer racist.
That is the standard. We stop being racist when skin color is no more important than eye color or hair color.