It’s the use of the loaded term ‘privilege’, taken from a US position where being white might indeed give you legal privileges over the non-white. Likewise, I’m old enough to remember when just being male gave male people codified, legal privileges over female people.
Ditto for straight people and non-disabled people. You can often point to the legal privileges; or if not, the removal of that privilege is within living memory.
What becomes divisive is when you apply ‘privilege’ to a situation and a country where being white gives you no legal privileges whatsoever, never has. Then extrapolate from that to insist that a white unemployed working-class person is somehow ‘privileged’ because he’s got a slightly better chance of finding a job than his black neighbour.
Really? Wouldn’t ‘white advantage’ be a better term? And have we got the figures to prove that ‘white advantage’ happens across all classes, both sexes and all races?
Or are we making the same mistake that we did in education, where we assumed the ‘white advantage’ carried across all social classes - only to find that it doesn’t.