flack, okay, I'll go with your point for the time being. Let's say that structures cannot be racist, political, et cetera. What that means is that individuals, or groups of individuals (because there's no such thing as society?), systematically abuse structure to pursue racist aims, with impunity.
Let's use Ryanair as an example. I say they are a racist business because they allowed one customer to harass another. That airline is not a neutral bystander. It has legal authority and responsibility to customers, and to the wider public. That's where the concept of duty comes from, along with the concept of dereliction of duty. Ryanair have a duty to protect customers from one another. They failed. They are either negligent or complicit. We can rule out negligence because a Ryanair staff moved the victim, instead of having the abuser arrested. The abuser goes unpunished, and the airline condones it. Doesn't matter if it's condoned explicitly or implicitly: the airhost has legal responsibilities to protect passengers; leaving the harasser in place exposes all other passengers to higher risk.
The structure of this airline, and of the business, perpetuates racist abuse. So while the structure itself cannot be racist, the way it is used by those who control it can be racist, in one of the broader meanings of the word. How we get from there to the concept of structural racism is not a big step, but it is wrapped up the sloppiness of public discourse, where a word like race , with a nominally clear definition, is used in all sorts of ways to mean other, related things. For example, Jews are not a race, but antipathy toward Jews is described as racism. There's a discursive sloppiness in that. So if we are complaining about other people's inept misuse of words and concepts, that's different to the abuse of one person by another and is also different to the extent to which that abuse is condoned through organisational structures.