With respect, I believe you're making a leap in inference that isn't justified, at least by the abstract. Again, the abstract states

harsher punishment of wrongdoers (Studies 1 and 4), less support for public aid for disadvantaged groups (Study 2), and less financial backing for policies that benefit marginalized groups in society (Study 3)

In Studies 1 and 4, "wrongdoers" doesn't necessarily mean "minority". Similarly, in Study 2, while it's true that in the United States certain minority groups then to have a higher percentage of representation in economically disadvantaged groups, there is nothing in the abstract that states that the findings are only generalizable to the United States; indeed, the affiliation of the researchers is with an Australian university. Without reading the study, we don't know the population the sample was gleaned from. As for Study 3, again women are considered a "marginalized" group, but in the United States, at least, the sex ratio is almost 1:1, so you can't necessarily equate marginalization with minority status.

All in all, a lot of words about a study that is, in my opinion, patent nonsense.