Disgracefull Racist?

From the standpoint of the South African government, J.M. Coetzee's book, Disgrace, is racist literature. Coetzee, according to the government, represented, "as brutally as he can the white people’s perception of the post-apartheid black man." No morally whole characters are black, and none of the black characters are given the same development as the white characters of equal importance to the plot.
Does this make Disgrace a racist book? Just as it was possible to argue that Joseph Conrad's Marlow was the racist, and a caricature of racism, it's possible to explain Disgrace. Much of the book deals with David Lurie's thought process, and as liberal and enlightened as he likes to think he is, he is still a product of apartheid South Africa. Sure, he's no Ettinger, but one could argue that there is little difference between Ettinger's razor-wire fence and Lurie's racial isolation in his academic bubble. In fact, Ettinger's fence is more honest to its own racism. But just because the character is a racist doesn't mean the book is. Defenders of Disgrace laud its brutal honesty in dealing with the hard feelings that still linger in South Africa because of its racialized history.
Is Coetzee responsible for Lurie's covert racism? Should he be denounced as a racist? I don't think so. He is responsible as an author to tell a story, it doesn't necessarily have to be a story we like. The movie American History X comes to mind in this situation. Surely, the story of neo-Nazis is not an endearing one, and can certainly offend, but to label the producers, directors, actors, and writers racist because they had a part in producing this film is ridiculous. There are of course boundaries. An author shouldn't step too far into the field of fiction (or rather falsehood) when making a critique on the way we think. Walt and Meirsheimer's recent report on the Israel lobby often ran counter to factual evidence, and in doing so rightly offended a number of people.