Considering the third case study, the landlord is not discriminating against blacks without reason. He states that in his proportion of tenants, the ones who fall back on the rent have arrears and then leaving without paying the arrears is small. In his experience, the blacks do this more than whites. Although there are honest tenants and dishonest whites, the landowner believes that he takes in the average, “so you have to go by the average rather than the individual. That is why blacks have to have better indications of reliability than whites before I will let to them” . The landlord is not stereotyping based on some facts. It might be true that the national average of the people defaulting on rents could show that blacks do it more than whites, but it does not mean the black tenants that he has encountered always default. In fact, he states in his own words that they do not. Therefore, he is racially prejudiced.
In the 1st case study, the director specifically wants to cast a black man, as the story in question is about the lives of blacks living in New York’s Harlem. The white actor is refused an audition because the director feels as much as the white actor can try to look like a black person, there would be some things that he would not understand or would not portray right. Here the argument of racism cannot be applied, as he is not discriminating arbitrarily. He is not discriminating like the housework who is prejudiced, but the director wants the back man for his casting because the story asks for it. Therefore, the absolutist’s view on racism cannot hold here.
Racism as understood by people over time has lost its meaning. In some contexts, racism cannot be viewed in its absolutist state. Instead, it must be viewed under the context. In the case studies 1, 2 and 3, it can be said that case study 1 does not represent racism in its standard state. Although appearing prejudiced and discriminating event, it can be allowed compared to case studies 2 and 3.