I'll give him credit for referring to the rebuttals to the Vox piece, which was typical tripe from that outlet. But the whole piece looks like a combination of virtue signaling with an attempt to divert the attention of any of its readership from the "dense obscurity" of the science because at the end of the day, what we always need is progressive policies unless you're a racist.
The reason IQ influence needs to be dealt with is, in part, to combat the "disparate outcome" based policies which assume "systemic racism" or "systemic sexism" are the only possible explanations.
Just to let you know, you're part of the reason why no one wants to have the kind of conversation that McWhorter is deigning to participate in. Because even a level-headed and remarkably cogent piece like this is automatically "virtue signalling" or some other alt-online terminology.
You and others have built up this rhetoric of anti-criticism: "We can't say anything because we're labeled as racists." Now someone like McWhorter actually tries to say "Well no, you're not, race
is biological and some of the work being done on race and IQ
is scientifically sound, if not definitive; but the relationship between this science and the public sphere needs to be addressed."
McWhorter's point, with which I agree, is that even if IQ differences turn out to be, in part, biological (i.e. racial), that doesn't justify the dismantling of programs intended to counteract social disparities. You're basically saying that you want the research to pan out in order to make yourself feel better--i.e. to affirm that it isn't entirely "systemic." But McWhorter is already saying that it's probably not entirely systemic, that there are biological factors.
If the research does pan out, it will be published and it will be discussed--and you can cite it when you get into arguments like this. But it doesn't need to become fodder for public discourse, and the reason is that there are plenty of non- (even anti-) intellectuals out there who will make the most inane and propagandistic bullshit out of such research.
your quote does not depict his position as neither for or against, just admits it will keep existing
but I was incorrect, he is clearly against discussing the issue to which I took a step further to mean he has no interest in researching it.
Yes, you're right he's not explicit about whether he's for or against the research being done. But he admits that it will keep being done, most likely, and he doesn't say that it shouldn't keep being done. The implication is that he doesn't want it to be eliminated. He may very well harbor some personal desire to see the research go away, but I'm confident that McWhorter believes in the power of research, and that he's comfortable in letting all research speak for itself, no matter what it's on.
