After President Joe Biden’s last speech and U.S. Sen. Tim Scott’s rebuttal, there was a lot of controversy regarding how to characterize race issues in America. This is an important debate because the first step to address any problem successfully is to frame it correctly and honestly. Is America essentially a good country that has to deal with race problems, or is it essentially, systematically a racist country?

This distinction matters. Suppose the country is fundamentally sound, but has specific and concrete racial issues to deal with. In that case, there is hope we can work together, identify problems, investigate causes and rationally test out different approaches to see what makes things better.

Conversely, if America is essentially and systematically a racist county in 2021, then it is irredeemable. It needs to be fundamentally transformed by any means necessary, possibly torn down and rebuilt from scratch. There is no hope for common ground in a systematically racist country, only conflict between those that want to perpetuate the oppression and those that want to end it.

Words mean things; they have definitions that matter. They guide our thoughts, emotions and actions. We must choose our words with care and integrity. There is a difference between an apple with a spot of rot, and a rotten apple. For the former, we preserve the apple by cutting out the area of corruption. For the latter, we discard the whole apple.

For those of you on the fence about which definition of America is correct and don’t know whether you want to improve it or replace it, let’s try a little thought experiment. Can a country that is systematically designed to prevent minorities from wielding the levers of wealth and power have minority presidents, senators, governors, millionaires and billionaires? Nope. Can a good country with minorities in positions of wealth and power still have racial disparities that need to be addressed? You bet.

While we are being rational here, I hope it is safe to point out that not every disparity between groups must be due, entirely, to oppression. For example, the average life expectancy for women is five years higher than that for men. Men are only 50% of the population but over 90% of those in prison. Men are far more likely to die of suicide, violence and workplace accidents than women. Does that mean that men are the victims of an oppressive matriarchy? Or does it mean that men — on average and in general — behave differently than women, creating different outcomes? Do women need to stop oppressing men, or do men need to look for ways to mitigate risk and better care for themselves?

Almost all effects have multiple causes that interact over time. But if we only pay attention when things blow up, we lock onto one possible reason behind the explosion and ignore all others.

Of course, we need institutional reform. All police should wear body cameras and receive better training, and corrupt officers should be rooted out and prevented from joining other departments. We also need the courage and integrity to look at the cultural dysfunction in many urban areas. What systems are in place, possibly well-intentioned, that have sabotaged the lives of so many minorities? Why not look at failing schools, dangerous streets, counterproductive drug laws, the decline of religion and welfare systems that discourage work, savings, marriage and have produced a 70% out-of-wedlock birth rate in the Black community? (That rate was only 25% in the 1960s.) If we genuinely want to do good and improve lives, everything has to be on the table.

Scott Moore is a retired school principal.