Is this a non-sequitur

I saw this argument floating on reddit and wanted to know whether it commits the non-sequitur fallacy or not

1. Affirmative action is racist against Asians because it creates unfairness to them based on their race.
2. Asian Americans who support affirmative action are supporting a racist policy.
--> Therefore Asian Americans who support affirmative action are racist against Asians / their own people

The term "racist" can vary greatly depending on who uses it. But let's try to ignore that because it doesn't matter what it means for the form of the argument, as long as we accept that the premises are true. What we are wondering is if the conclusion follows.

It would appear equivocation is being used with the term racist, therefore, the conclusion does not follow and it is a non sequitur . Let me explain. In premise #1, "racism" is referring to a policy that creates unfairness based on race. In the conclusion, the kind of "racism" being referred to is people who support a racist policy, with no mention of that in premise #2. For this to be a solid deductive argument, it would have to remove the equivocation. Something like:

1. Affirmative action creates unfairness to Asians based solely on their race.
2. It is racist to support a policy that creates unfairness to Asians based solely on their race.
C. Therefore Asian Americans who support affirmative action are racist against Asians / their own people 

Notice we don't even need to use the term "racist" in P1. Here we are connecting Affirmative action with the idea that it unfair based on race alone. In P2, we are now introducing the term "racist" by defining it by the support of such a policy. Then, the conclusion logically follows.

This is not a non sequitur.  In fact, if the premises are true the conclusion follows logically.

In my opinion, premises 1 and 2 are certainly true.  People can can argue that affirmative action is necessary to correct past evils (which is something reasonable people can disagree about), but if you impose affirmative action, then (unless all the applicants are equally qualified, which is statistically unlikely), what you're saying is that a certain number of more qualified people of one group (Asians, Jews etc.) will not get a job or get into a school in order to make room for less qualified persons of another group.

P) Affirmative action is racist towards Asian Americans

P) Asian Americans who support affirmative action are supporting a racist policy

C) Asian Americans who support affirmative action are supporting racism towards themselves

The argument is valid because assuming the premises are true, it really is implied that Asian Americans who support affirmative action are guilty of internalised racial discrimination. However, it is of questionable soundness, as the affirmative action debate is a hotly-contested issue. This makes the first premise ("Affirmative action is racist towards Asian Americans") dubious. Conservatives would agree that it is, as it stipulates racial preferences as part of the application process. Liberals would counter by saying that giving advantages to historically-disadvantaged groups is a form of  anti-racism , and is thus not racist.

Note that the second premise could be true even if the first one isn't, as "racist policy" could refer to any set of procedures that discriminates against any group, Asian in origin or not. So even if AA weren't discriminatory towards Asian Americans, it could be towards, say, white Americans. In that case, though, the conclusion would no longer follow from the premise (those Asian Americans would be supporting a racist policy, but it wouldn't be racist towards themselves).

My opinion after reading a comment that mentions equivocation.

Analogy:

1. Supporting more time for lunch takes away time from workers from the first shift.
2. Tom supports more time for lunch.
C. Tom supports taking away time from workers from the first shift.

Explanation: Tom may not be aware of the consequences that the new policy brings. 

This is embedding motives by assuming that supporters of a policy know everything about that policy. This is an ad hominem (circumstantial) if we see it as Tom making an argument in favor of the policy and think that he does that only because benefits him (and harms others). 

No fallacies here. Actually, as an Asian American, I can attest that there are a small number of Asians who hate Asians! However, those Asians who support affirmative action are mostly not hating their own race; they just happen to buy into the policy of preferential treatment based on race even at their race's own disadvantage. This is racist in the sense of actual outcome but not racist in the sense of affect or hate.