Gosh, you folks are using what are undefined terms, "racist" and "racism," and apparently have different definitions for it so that you are muddying the waters.
Some of you don't believe in free association, but support compulsion. Some of you would have social mores pressure people to associate when they do not find the association congenial to them.
If a person finds another person's presence unpleasant and chooses to remove himself to a milieu he finds more congenial to his being, he is enhancing his life according to his feelings. If a person finds people with bad hygiene unpleasant to be around, and removes himself tfrom their vicinity, that seems to be okay. If a person finds people of another race, ethnicity, or religion comprises his enjoyment of his life's time and removes himself from that vicinity, somehow many of you folks denominate that as "bad."
Why should one person place himself in a situation that reduces his enjoyment of his life's time to accommodate the sensibilities of another.
If a person perceives the presence of say blacks in this case as disconcerting, threatening, or unpleasant in any way, and decides to remove that unpleasantness, so what? Is the convenience and enjoyment of life by others on some higher plane than his enjoyment of his life? Why?
Again, what is racism for you folk? Is the definition reciprocal? That is, is it a general definition with the insertion of the race immaterial, or does the particular race control the definition? Why?
All some of you convinced folks seem to do is resort to invective as it seems to satisfy your souls. You are unhappy. You don't seem to be able to articulate just why you are unhappy withg any clarity, nor why others should be compelled to make you happy.