No. The overarching point of this article is that for an institution to not be racist, there must be a mechanism that would allow an equal distribution of ethnic groupings within it. Whether ethnic minorities occupy positions within that institution is neither here nor there. The distinction between what you've implied I've said and what I've actually said is important. It might be indicative of a racial bias if everyone in an institution is homogenous but also it might be a facet of geography or disinterest. There's no real easy way to tell - labelling such a thing as racist might be factually incorrect.

The fact that there has only been one BIPOC President in American history suggests that there is a race problem, that the US has never elected a female President suggests there might be a sex problem - but the electoral structure itself isn't racist or sexist. It is not impossible for a BIPOC woman to become the President, it is merely the attitudes of those around her that prevent it and other voting issues - it is not the structure of electing a President itself.

With hereditary monarchy (as opposed to an elected head of state) the nature of genetics automatically excludes people on the basis of ethnicity. In short, it doesn't matter what you do mixed-race is as good as it's going to get. I'm not angry at the monarchy either. I'm just pointing out that many people who are 'woke' haven't done the requisite thinking on this issue. They fly the flag for Prince Harry without fully considering what they're supporting when they do so.

I'm not angry that there's no white leader of Tanzania - and I'm not Tanzanian, but if there were a mechanism that excluded a white person from becoming the leader of Tanzania, such an electoral structure would also be racist.