"There are numerous different definitions of the word racism, so for the purpose of this discussion I will use only this one as an aid for discussion.
Racism is prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism by an individual, community, or institution against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular racial or ethnic group. It can also include the belief that different races possess distinct characteristics, abilities, or qualities, especially so as to distinguish them as inferior or superior to one another.
Having set the definition, bearing in mind the subjective nature of morality and ethics, is racism universally bad? Are there any circumstances where some form of racism can benefit a society and should therefore be acceptable.
Please set out your position and more importantly your reasoning."

-----

It's wrong to include "the belief that different races possess distinct characteristics, abilities, or qualities" as a criterion for racism, because then you potentially make neutral, objective facts socially unacceptable. Using them to make judgments of inferiority or superiority is wrong and subjective, but the definition said "especially" when they're used to do that, not *only* when. This criterion for racism is bad and hurts society because we should always try to be objective and seek truth. It's always better to know/believe the truth than to believe a falsehood, because one aspect, perhaps the most fundamental aspect, of truth is utility. Falsehoods are less useful and misleading and cause you to suboptimally interact with reality. And, whatever you can do with a falsehood, you could also do knowing the truth if you so chose from the more informed perspective. Also, making facts politically incorrect discourages people from thinking for themselves in general, and also causes people who do think for themselves to be unfairly bullied and ostracized. This kind of coercive groupthink can easily help lead to culture running off the rails into insanity.
As to whether different races actually *do* posses distinct characteristics, abilities or qualities, they obviously do. For example, blacks possess dark skin and afro-textured hair. This is a characteristic or quality. If you meant only mental characteristics, abilities or qualities, those differ by race too. There's no reason to assume they wouldn't. Mental abilities and characteristics are to some degree determined/influenced by genetics just like physical ones are, or else hamsters would have the same mental abilities and characteristics as we do. The genomes of the various races diverge from each other just as hamsters and people diverged somewhere in the tree of life, only to a lesser degree. So the mental differences would be less stark than the hamster example, but they'd still be there to some degree.
Obviously, some of these differences, maybe all of the mental ones, only apply on a statistical or general level, as individuals vary from each other just as races do.
So, as long as "the belief that different races possess distinct characteristics, abilities, or qualities" is included in the definition of racism, so-called "racism" isn't universally bad. But, as said earlier, it really shouldn't be a part of the definition. It's only included in the definition because the consideration of such differences causes cognitive dissonance in people's minds because of their association with notions of inferiority, prejudice and discrimination, genocide, etc.