Moral Implications of Race and IQ

I have been following an interesting discussion about inherent racial differences in intelligence. I am convinced that individual human beings vary in their intelligence and that intelligence is more or less normally distriibuted in the population. One of my interests as an amateur anthropologist is understanding why above average intelligence doesn't confer an evolutionary advantage such that geniuses would come to abound. It appears that average intelligence is nature's preferred level of smarts and that high intelligence comes with some countervailing defects, what I call the "Nerd Factor", that renders geniuses somehow less fit than the average schmendrick.

I am agnostic about whether there are genetic differences in intelligence among "races". It is widely supposed that Africans are less intelligent on average than Europeans and that East Asians are smarter on average than Europeans. This may or may not be so, but even if it is so, racial differences in intelligence would be devoid of the moral implications some folks seem to think they possess. We sometimes draw arbitrary moral conclusions and pretend that they result from the "facts".

Here are some conclusions that can't rationally be drawn from the fact of racial disparities in intelligence, assuming it is a fact:

1. I can't tell anything about the intelligence of a member of any racial category until I interact with him. Any assumptions I make will be gratuitous and reflective of my own arbitrary biases.

2. If there is a racial disparity in intelligence, this does not mean that other disparities in wealth, income, health, etc are explained by it in whole or part.

3. I don't get to blame people for having lower intelligence, and I arguably should extend them an extra measure of solicitude rather than holding them in contempt.

4. I don't get to declare that society isn't broken but that some of its people are. Any society that severely disadvantages a substantial portion of the population on the basis of a widely distributed inborn trait is arguably unjust.

5. If there is a racial disparity in intelligence, then the use of intelligence or proxies for intelligence in discriminating among individuals is not "neutral" and is suspect, especially where intelligence is not all that relevant. Literacy is not relevant to civil rights, so literacy tests for voting are not "neutral" and may function to discriminate on the basis of race. Likewise, excessive qualifications for employment, such as useless credentials or degrees or intelligence tests unrelated to aptitude, may function as a cover for racial discrimination.

If there is a racial disparity in intelligence, I don't want racialists to use it as a pretext to deny the existence of discrimination, racism and other social issues. I think that it is better to demur on the factual issue (it may well turn out to be true) and confront the misuse of the issue. Let us call the racialists on their deployment of the "facts" to legitimize racist positions while leaving open the possibility that the racialists are right on the "facts". Instead of "Says you" let us say "So what".