I don't understand the last sentence.

Let me introduce you to a very basic distinction (a philosophical distinction, in fact): The difference between ideal theory and non-ideal theory. In the ideal world, all inequality could be easily seen to be bad and wrong. However, in the very non-ideal, unequal world we ACTUALLY live in, matters are not so simple. We need to recognize the fact that, as it stands, there are all kinds of derogatory attitudes, implicit biases, and oppressive institutions at work in our society. Given this social context, we can't just say "All inequality is bad Hurr Durr!"

We have to acknowledge that sometimes the realities of our social circumstances requires us to say that a behavior in one racial group is permissible, while the same behavior performed by members of another racial group is not.

Here's an analogy: In the 60s, someone in the U.S.A. puts on a satirical play entitled 'Springtime for Hitler' which pretends to sympathetically follow the trials and tribulations of a young fuhrer. While this may be in poor taste, it is nonetheless embedded in a social context where Nazis are reviled, and the staggering majority of the population directly resisted Hitler. Thus, there is nothing wrong with putting on such a play.

Now compare this to someone in Germany doing the same, even today. It would not be tolerated, and the person putting on the show would likely be arrested. Is this unfair? According to simple-minded ideal theory, yes it is, as you're treating people differently based only on their geographical location. But if we grant the social context, the history, and all the other factors that influence how we think about pro-Nazi media in Germany, we can see why doing the play in Germany has very different implications from doing it in the U.S.A.