Right-wing economic policies and limited government are our best guard against institutional racism.
There is a more nuanced position against government intervention put forward by libertarians or classical liberals. It is not the business of government to regulate private conduct and the free association of peoples. Institutional racism in the South was strengthened by Jim Crow legislation that aspired to regulate the conduct of individuals and private enterprise. This was reversed not by the agency of government or fiat, but by the concerted efforts of thousands who believed it was wrong and challenged it, all while being actively denied their constitutional rights to representation. At least in this instance, a broader definition of the state's rightful role in the social sphere perpetuated a great wrong.
Martin Luther King Jr. was able to use the threat of a voluntary community boycott to successfully change the hiring practices of various corporations. Similarly, Gandhi and Ambedkar were able to effect meaningful change to the caste-system in India via the force of personal example and conviction. To combat institutionalized discrimination that has plagued India for millenia, soon after independence, the Indian government enacted an affirmative action policy in hiring and admission to government run educational institutions for those of "low caste". This was implemented via a system of quotas for jobs in the civil service and government run colleges. Yet, in recent years this has led to widespread rioting as the quotas are considered unfair, especially to the poor who do not have the dubious privilege of being eligible for the positions reserved via a quota. There is also a market for fraudulent certificates documenting a lower caste. Yet another example of unintended consequences.
The classical liberal objection to government intrusion within private affairs is grounded in a fundamental distrust of coercive means used beyond a narrow sphere. The rationale for this distrust is that the coercive power of government is too easily arrogated by social improvers. All too often has the power of the state been used to promote the latest project of social engineering, whether this were prohibition, or segregation of Asian-Americans in California during the early 20th century. Classical liberals believe the government has no business criminalising consensual activity amongst adults. So, they oppose prohibition, laws against sodomy, criminalisation of narcotics, etc. In truth, this is the only position that can conscientiously be adopted by anyone who believes in individualism. If you cede to the government the right to regulate private conduct, you will soon find your own conduct questioned and regulated. Worse yet, such a system encourages the perversion of law as the more resourceful find ways to escape punishment. One of the worst instances of institutional racism in the US is the disproportionate punishment of young black men for narcotics related crimes. Yet only classical liberalism as a political philosophy has an answer for this scourge.
In essence, the two great burdens of a central or federal government are providing for national defence and protecting the rights of its citizens. So, for instance, the Civil War and federal action during the Civil Rights Movement were justified exercises of government authority because they protected citizens' rights. Another unintended consequence of the indiscriminate use of governmental authority is that it encourages the growth of special interests. Congressional or parlimentary manuevering then becomes a battle amongst lobbyists, and the people and their representatives lose control of the process. The legislative process then becomes a fight for the spoils of government action or inaction.
The classical liberal perspective would be called "right-wing" from an economic perspective. At the same time, as a political philosophy it intrinsically recognizes the equality of all its citizens.