I agree with the problem, but I'm not sure you have the right solution.

We're super-duper-awesome at building coalitions. Democrats profess racial tolerance but are quick to attack darker-skinned Republicans with all sorts of unpleasant labels; people cheer for their sports team, not the people of their color on both teams; people in the Army report extremely high levels of cross-racial trust within their own units. Assign us to green or purple at random, and suddenly people of our label are wise and kind, and they're foolish and mean. (Paraphrased, in each case, but there are studies that say each of these things.)

So, if you actually want people to not end up judged by the color of their skin, but in the meantime you're going "white this" and "BIPOC that"--very clearly drawing battle lines based on skin color--how do you envision the endgame where we finally get out of this?

Seems to me that a cursory view of human nature would suggest that the natural outcome of anything called "antiracism" that is directed specifically at "white (whatever)" would be increased racial polarization.

Now, it might possibly be worth it, if something else really valuable can be achieved in only that way. But even then, you still have to ask: how do you get out?

If it were possible to do what needs to be done by appealing as much as possible to common goals and values, then you wouldn't have a huge hyperpolarized mess to clean up at the end. Don't you agree?