Spot the Fallacy: The Heartbeat of Racism?

P.S. Scott was responding to people like Kendi. A revised dialogue that included the initial argument he is referencing would look like the below.

Kendi: Racism in America is institutional, structural and systemic. (source)

Scott: Hear me clearly: America is not a racist country.

Kendi: The heartbeat of racism is denial. We can hear the heartbeat clearly.

It's not clear that Scott was replying to the specific argument of Kendi - rather, he was addressing the wider argument, propagated by many thinkers and politicians, that institutional racism persists in the US. In this particular case, Kendi's actual response contained an identifiable logical fallacy.

True. It wasn't direct, as I made it, but Kendi is out front in making that assertion. So it's probable he was someone Scott had in mind.

In any case, I added the first part to help make it clearer what fallacy Kendi is committing. You said it's identifiable and described it generally. What is "it" specifically? If you get it, you win! :-)

Ok, I might this wrong, because there are so many fallacies out there, but the closest one I can find is ad hominem (circumstantial): " Suggesting that the person who is making the argument is biased or predisposed to take a particular stance, and therefore, the argument is necessarily invalid."

Salesman: This car gets better than average gas mileage and is one of the most reliable cars according to Consumer Reports.

Will: I doubt it—you obviously just want to sell me that car.

Kendi attempts to invalidate Scott's statement, because of its supposed predisposition to conform to Republican dogma and, presumably, make the pro-America case seem more racially diverse.

I feel there is a better fallacy out there, though. 

I don't see a fallacy at all. The Scott quote as reported here is a conclusion with no argument. The Kendi statement as quoted is a poetic statement with no argument. A fallacy is a faulty argument, and, if there is no argument, there's no fallacy. 

Thank you for playing! I submit that there is an argument here. It became an argument when Kendi responded to Scott on Twitter, attempting to rebut his tweet. (Or, to be fair, when Scott "sub-tweeted" Kendi by posting his tweet.)

To simplify, the argument goes like this:

• Person A: America is shot through with racism.
• Person B: No, that's not true. America is not a racist country at all.
• Person A: Your denial is proof of my claim.

Spot a fallacy?

No one replied with the fallacy I was thinking about, which is shifting of the burden of proof.

That said, we need a better name for the logical fallacy that says denying a claim is proof of a claim. People often use the Salem Witch Trials as an analogy. Apparently, during that time, the accused had two options: admit she was a witch and hope to be shown mercy, or deny it and be hanged.

Kendi is doing something like this with racism. You can either admit to racism and hope to be shown mercy, or deny it and be condemned. Maybe we can call this variation of shifting the burden of truth the Salem Denial fallacy? :-)

Exactly.