Unless you're incapable of continuing the discussion because I said Dawkins was racist, I don't see how my calling him racist is supposed to be an attempt to avoid frank discussion.
Pretending Islamophobia and anti-Semitism aren't forms of racism doesn't actually make it so, especially given the history of conflating Judaism in particular with race rather than merely religious belief.
(Just like it's still racist if you say, "I don't think Black people are inferior because of their race, it's just that their ~culture~ has serious problems.")
Racial profiling is another good example. We may have hard facts that certain races are more likely to commit certain crimes, and some of us think it's racist to use that information to target people and some think it's a moral imperative because it theoretically will lead to more effective policing.
That would be an example of pseudoscientific racism, incidentally, because the actual research shows that racial profiling does not, in fact, lead to more effective policing, and so it's a case of letting one's racist beliefs overshadow the facts.
In principle scientific racism (as in, the sort that doesn't require any pseudoscience) could hinge on something like statistical differences in types of intelligence between different racial groups. Those differences may in fact be real and verifiable, but that wouldn't make discrimination or bias based on race any less racist. The fact that a lot of so-called scientific racism has in the past been based on what's actually pseudoscience doesn't mean it's impossible for such a thing to exist, because racism is still bad regardless of what the science happens to say.