If you reduced that to just say "institutional bias", I could agree with that.
Some of it I think you could say involves an institutionally racial bias, but that's not racist. It's not "implied" either. With an institution it's either biased for or against some class of people or not. Stop-n-frisk I believe is a good example of a policy that is racially biased, not implicitly or intentionally. It inherently involves stereotyping, which by itself is not racist at least within the traditional definition of racism. It's human nature to attach meaning to groups according to our own perceptions. Stereotyping isn't an accurate way to judge an individual within a group. But to the extent it's helped groups pass on their genes, stereotyping is an evolutionary feature, not a bug. It's just one of those features where we're socially evolving past most of its usefulness. As it pertains to stop and frisk, using stereotyping to decide who could be committing a crime is not accurate enough to justify using it, because it will affect a lot of people who haven't done anything wrong.
For all practical purposes institutional racism has disappeared. Individual instances of racism hasn't disappeared, and institutional power wielded by individual racists hasn't disappeared. But that's not the same as institutional racism. I don't think stop and frisk is inherently racist, but its outcome impacts black people more than white people for various reasons that aren't racist.
I think I agree with the idea that SJW's saw some screws around the place that are legitimately loose. Some of critical race theory is based on things that are objectively true. But it's not really accurate to say that they're taking a sledge hammer to fixing them. That kinda implies that they're just being overzealous in fixing legitimate problems. But only some of the problems are legitimate. And their solution is as destructive as the problem. But the crux of it is that they don't understand the world the way Western society views the world. It's a different world altogether. They see manhy screws loose that aren't actually lose. Virtually no one is a real ass Fascist. They imagine themselves fighting armies of Fascists. This is because they think Capitalism is pretty much the same as Fascism, for one example. So what's the proper solution to fixing Fascism? End Capitalism.
The tools they use to understand the world makes their world they see look far different to them from the one that everyone else sees. Some of those tools are critical theory, and Marxism, critical race theory, and then many ideas later were borrowed from the French philosophers that theorized postmodernism. Seeing the world from a different perspective does allow them to see some things we might not have. But they see those problems in far greater proportions and they see many problems that don't actually exist. Borrow a tool like "deconstruction" and morph that into "Problematizing" and you'll find all kinds of problems that don't actually exist.
I'll digress a little here. One of the criticisms of Jordan Peterson was that he called these people Postmodernists AND Marxists. And to his credit he did admit he didn't quite understand the link. It's not that there isn't one. But Peterson was criticized by both Marxists AND Postmodernists because they both say the other is incompatible with their ideology. But this worldview seems to be constructed from an ala carte collection of tools which borrows ideas from all those left end thinkers. At it's foundation they see every transaction as a power game between oppressed and oppressor, for one example. That's a feature of both Neo-Marxism and Postmodernism. So I guess we could say what links insane social justice to Marxism and Postmodernism is that insane social justice is an intersection of those ideas. Or more accurately, a worldview constructed by tools that both ideologies have in common.
