That's not the point at all, because you don't know how significant was the result when changing the question, because this article conveniently doesn't mention it's sources and if you search a bit you find the probable source article is not online (to the best of my knowledge).
So this article seems to be just about spreading division among racial lines.
Google Scholar search for "Frank L. Samson" - the cited researcher - finds as the #1 hit "Multiple Group Threat And Malleable White Attitudes Towards Academic Merit", Du Bois Review, 10:1 (2013) 233–260.
> The current study presents three main results. First, how Whites adjust the importance that a criterion of academic merit should have depends upon which ethnoracial outgroups Whites are considering. This finding weakens the argument that White commitment to meritocracy is purely based on principle, since the importance given to particular meritocratic criteria, here grade point average, varies depending upon the outgroups under consideration and the extent of the group threat they pose to Whites.
This appears to be aligned with gant's statement, though couched in the academic phrasing "This finding weakens the argument" rather than "full of shit." The title is more direct, with "Malleable White Attitudes Towards Academic Merit".
Since gant's comment is in rough agreement with both the Inside Higher Ed piece and the original paper, I do not agree with your assessment that "that's not the point at all."
So this article seems to be just about spreading division among racial lines.