I think it's a more complex situation than the author presents - and such a thing will always be the case in a pluralistic society. In the example of the friends who are outwardly racist and who do not want to change their view that black people are inferior - we can both probably agree that we wouldn't want to keep friends like this.

But when the definition of 'racist' is a subjective and movable feast - it includes all actions by white people at all times. The definition of racist according to those people is 'everyone who has benefited and or continues to benefit from white supremacy' - if that is what the word means then I would argue that yes, there are 'good' people who fit into that critieria.

In fact, I would argue that the notion of 'good' is a complex philosophical idea that can't easily be explained away. Where does one put Churchill for example? Led the British to war against the Nazis (definitely bad) but also hated BIPOC to an alarming level. Is he good or bad?

What the author has done is presented a binary position. If you accept racists, anti-semites, sexists, homophobes or islamaphobes as friends, then you can't be friends with her.... but on whose definition of those words does she base that on? If I accuse you of being racist because you've stood up for Prince Harry - does that mean you are? Does it matter if I'm BIPOC?

As for Meghan and Harry - my views on the monarchy are fairly clear. It's a structurally racist institution which he draws his personal wealth and prestige from - one that has bypassed all scrutiny because the Queen is a nice lady. Most progressives, including many anti-racists on Medium miss the point entirely when they talk about how supportive he is of his wife. I can't rememember if I've posted this already - but you can find my views here.

https://medium.com/lucid-nightmare/the-most-racist-institution-of-all-f6d91949c638