As a former Academic, I can tell you that one should be very careful in relying upon the definitional incoherence of Social Science Professors with regard to the topic of Race. The phrase, "Race is a social construct", is loaded with inaccuracies and defies scientific reality and objectivity-(which is just fine with many Social Science Academics, considering the fact that many of them tend to have Post-Modern sympathies). Sadly, throughout most of the Contemporary era, many Social Science Academics and Theorists, have successfully converted and transformed Biological and Anthropological Science, into a highly subjective discourse whereby the topic of race, is positioned front and Center. Social Science Academics took and still take great liberties with what was and is still, a term, that is primarily related to Genetics, as well as Anthropology and deeply politicized it, in order to promote a newer (and I believe, a vacuous) intellectual narrative.
While my background is in History, I have taught introductory courses in Anthropology and focused on Ethnography. My courses NEVER examined "race as a social construct", but instead, closely examined the relationship between race and ethnicity-(namely from taxonomic and historical perspectives). For example, when I discussed, "White peoples", I asked the class to define the word, "White"-(or "Caucasian") in ethno-geographical, as well as ethno-historical terms...few were able to do so. I also asked my class if the word, "Hispanic" or "Latino", was racially or ethnically etymological. And with regard to the word, "Asian", there were numerous misunderstandings of its ethnic and racial connotations among many of my students. In the case of African peoples, my goal was to teach students, the diverse ethno-racial composition of the African continent, stretching from Egypt to Mozambique. Yet, throughout my lectures and discussions over the years, the phrase, "race as a social construct", was never uttered.
The word, "White" or "Caucasian", according to many Anthropological texts, Dictionaries, Encyclopedic texts and the U.S. Census, is typically defined as, "any person(s) who are of European, North African and Middle Eastern descent". According to this mainstream definition, Arabs, Berbers and Persians/Iranians, could be identified...as "White" or "Caucasian". The word, "Asian", is typically defined-(usually by the same above mentioned sources), as "any person(s) who are of East Asian and South Asian descent". This definition means that any person who has ancestry from the Indian subcontinent, somehow, belongs to the same ethno-racial category as someone from China or Japan. The word, "Hispanic" or "Latino", is usually defined as, "any person(s) from a Latin American country who is either White or Non-White", which definitionally speaking, has its own limits. The word, "African" or "Black", is usually defined as, "any person(s) who has ancestry in the African continent"-(however, this definition would exclude North African Berbers, Arabs and Egyptians).
While these ethno-geographical definitions have some legitimacy and validity, they tend to fall short in certain areas. For example, take the word, "Asian"; technically, many ethnic Arabs have ancestry in WEST ASIAN lands, stretching from Lebanon to Oman. Iran, as well as neighboring countries, such as Uzbekistan and Tajikistan are also...Asian lands. If this is geographically true, then why use the word, "Asian" to only include peoples from East Asia, Southeast Asia and the Indian subcontinent?-(the mainstream's definition, is, at best, incomplete). In the case of the word, "White" or "Caucasian", is a person from Egypt, the same race as someone from Sweden? Again, what exactly does the word White or Caucasian really mean? In the case of the word, Latino or Hispanic, there are the words, "White" and "Non-White" Hispanic, which are probably based on historical demographics whereby so-called, "White" Hispanics were originally from Spain and Spanish speaking indigenous "First Peoples/Nations" of the Western Hemisphere are largely, "Non-White". What about the centuries old Spanish speaking peoples of Argentina? Are they identified as, "White" Spaniards? How about the Mestizos/as-(who comprise, a sizable percentage of Mexico's population), what would be their classification? In the case of "Africans" and "Blacks", how would one identify East Africans?-(who are actually of mixed ethno-racial descent, due to centuries of intermixing with neighboring Egyptians and Semitic peoples across the greater Middle East). While East Africans are certainly "Black" and "African", their genetics reveal that they have non-African ancestry as well. How then would they be accurately classified when using the mainstream's definition?
So, as you can see, the topic of race, is far more complex than Genetics; it encompasses historical, ethnographic and geographical components as well. However, the idea that Race, has been and is still, the Center of ALL Reality, due to a supposed systematic design that was and is still, enacted by Powerful Elites of a particular race for the SOLE purpose of disenfranchising and disempowering another race-(while partially true), is by no means, Universally true. The Post-Modern Theory of Race, erroneously disregards (and conveniently omits), the above mentioned components that accurately define the complexities of race. In doing so, the Post-Modern Racialists radically politicize a concept, which for millennia, has been largely-(though not entirely)..apolitical.