The sources I have found thus far all come from quite disparate disciplines.  Literary criticism by an academic, art historical criticism by an academic, societal-psychological analysis by an academic, political statistical analysis by an academic, and historical-educational-cultural commentary by a hip hop artist/poet at the Oxford Union.

Despite the variations in the sources, the take away for each is roughly the same: There is a narrative being told, and it isn’t holistic, inclusive, or equitable.  It strikes me that anyone can define racism as a problem (as they each do), anyone can come up with a simple answer (Judge Straight in The House Behind the Cedars) which is palatable to most, if not all (Love can defeat racism, and that custom is tyranny), but that what is increasingly difficult is that the self-perpetuating, self-strenghtening narrative that has been told from the beginning of the western civilization (Akala) is so dominant that it is almost insurmountable.

Literature and art speak to what is happening at the time, and so could be said to be the distillation of a societal feeling.  If this is true, then it could be argued that they influenced policy, especially if they temporally preceded the policy at hand.  The issue to contend with is the narrative.  It appears to be driven by a zero sum understanding of society in which disparate groups vie for resources (socio-economic position for example).  Where did the narrative start?  How did it develop?  Where will it end?