I would be very surprised if anyone outside a few fringe email newsletters would agree that racism and sexism are not moral accusations. In a case where that statement were true, where sexism and racism were intrinsic facts of a struggle between exploiters and exploitees and not circumstantial beliefs to be mitigated by discourse, there is no possibility of peace, tolerance, or coexistance. And yet, these manage to exist today almost everywhere where people who do not believe that sort of thing live.

The main implication of such a view is that discourse is just an artifact of that oppression, that only postpones an inevitable conflict that is necessarily fatal for one of the exploiter or exploited. It also excuses the exploited from being held to the ethics and morality of the exploiter.

Hard not to see such a system of belief as beyond reason and even incarnate evil, but as they say, the devil's greatest trick was convincing us he didn't exist. :)

You're conflating character assessments with moral ones.

A racist may be both immoral and good natured.

Exploitation is a moral term. It says that the mere existence of a whole group of people is immoral. It's not clear that it is, nor even really what "exploitation" means.

Moral culpability assumes responsibility. I'm racist and sexist because I was born in a racist and sexist society -- that was not my fault. I spread disease because germs exist, and that's not my fault. But now that I've learned to see and recognize racism, sexism and germs, I try to fight them and not to spread them. If I don't wash my hands or do not fight sexism and racism, then I am morally culpable now, but those facts in themselves do not imply moral culpability even though they do imply harm (in all three cases).

Your statement about exploitation is just an expression of laziness and anger. It is hard for me to believe that you believe that scholars believe that the existence of a group of people is immoral. If that is what you believe, then you aren't paying attention.