Racial discrimination is not discriminating against a member of a racial minority even though discriminating against a member of a racial minority is, in fact, racial discrimination. If this proposition seems confusing, it is because American society is largely confused about the meaning of racial discrimination. Even four associate justices of the U.S. Supreme Court remain, if not confused then, confusing.

Racial discrimination is discriminating against an individual or a group on the basis of race. It is both immoral and illegal to discriminate against anyone on the basis of race—anyone, not just racial minorities.

Yet, this is precisely what the City of New Haven, Conn, did when it refused to promote firefighters and did so on the basis of their race. A federal court of appeals failed to recognize this, and it took the Supreme Court, in a 5-to-4 decision, to correct the error.

(Ironically, President Obama’s first nomination to serve on the Court was a member of that very appeals court whose decision was overturned by the Court. The senate needs to get a very good answer on this from Sonia Sotomayor when considering whether she can join the Court and also oppose all illegal discrimination.)

Although several white firefighters passed the examination and so qualified for promotion, the test was thrown out because no Black or Hispanic scored sufficiently high to qualify. This is as much racial discrimination as if the city had refused to promote a minority member because of race. Unfair and illegal discrimination has nothing to do with minority status but entirely with race.

This recognition is not simply logical and moral, it is legal. This is what the law stipulates, but there is a serious tendency to read the law different. I find this understandable and have empathy for those who make the mistake. We had gone through a terrible time of recognizing we had, indeed, routinely, systematically, and thoughtlessly discriminated against racial minorities. They, not only Blacks and Hispanics but other ethnic groups, had suffered grievously for generations. Something had to be done to correct this outrage, and this was the accomplishment of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

What was outlawed is not discrimination against racial minorities but discrimination against anyone when the basis is entirely or largely based on race. Race ought not to be even a minor factor or consideration.

I can’t recognize, nor could any court, that New Haven intended to discriminate against Whites. I suspect city officials never thought of it this way but were preoccupied (perhaps obsessed) with not discriminating against minorities. They do well to be profoundly concerned, because their record on tolerance hadn’t been good. But having offended in one regard is not balanced by offending as often in the opposite. Balance is achieved by zero discrimination.

What happened in New Haven is not, as a popular term has it, “reverse discrimination.” It is, clear and simple, discrimination.

A clear precedent has now been established by the Supreme Court, but this sort of case is going to keep coming up in local, state, and federal courts until we finally get it right that all racial discrimination is wrong regardless of the race affected.