Racial Realism vs. DEI
with Amy Wax
Much of the research we have tells us that some standardized tests, like the SAT, can predict the test takers’ academic success further down the line. If you’re in the 99th percentile of SAT takers, you’re probably going to do well in college, all other things being equal. But to what extent should we allow measurable intelligence determine how we organize society? And what do we do with the fact that measured intelligence varies between racial groups? In this clip from this week’s episode, Amy Wax argues that “racial realism” is a necessary countermeasure to DEI overreach. We debate the value and the limits of basing social policy on the fact that there are average differences in IQ between groups.
This is a clip from the episode that went out to paying subscribers on Monday. To get access to the full episode, as well as an ad-free podcast feed, Q&As, and other exclusive content and benefits, click below.
"What do we do with the fact that measured intelligence varies between racial groups?"
We do nothing with it. Why would we want to?
We don't hire groups; we hire individuals. We don't admit groups; we admit individuals. We're not friends with groups; we're friends with individuals. The fact that any given group average (of anything!) is higher or lower than a different group's average is meaningless in every way that counts.
What matters in our human interactions is our human abilities as they are displayed & demonstrated, individual by individual. Group averages are absurd for everyone but sociologists.
If we begin with a color-blind commitment, meaning that we will define our standards, and create our process hurdles to be 'blind' to any given individual's race or color, then process outcomes simply are what they are. If there is a racial imbalance in that outcome, it's NOT the process at fault (if fault is to be had), it's the input quality of those who participate. We don't need to invoke 'race realism' to accept that imbalance....we only need to accept the fact that the standards & process hurdles that yielded the imbalance are themselves race-neutral, making the outcomes non-racist even if they are imbalanced.
For all the rest of us, that's fine; that's life. Better players start even if it means that starting team is racially imbalanced. No one cares. And we don't care because we're also sure that even if our group's average is higher or lower than a different group's average, that we ourselves will start if we ourseves are better. Group averages be damned.
But for the Social Engineer, convinced that life really should be arithmetically fair & balanced & even in all ways at all times, then every demographic imbalance is a nail in need of a hammer. It doesn't matter if women don't want to be lumberjacks, 50% of all lumberjacks must be women. It doesn't matter if men don't want to be pre-school teachers or dental hygienists....50% of both must be men.
Thus we see the monstrously horrific corruption of our institutions....the dissolution of standards....the death of quality...all pursued to make the Group Average look better. And it doesn't matter if the Social Engineer has to actively discriminate on the basis of color to make that happen...heck, you can't make an omelet without breaking a whole bunch of eggs. And if that doesn't work, well dammit, break some more!
I remember reading about the Lubinsky study that Amy Wax alluded to, which I believe followed individuals who scored above a certain threshold on the SAT at an early age and tracked those people into adulthood. If I remember correctly, the conclusion was that there was a demonstrable difference in achievement between those who were merely 1 in 100 in cognitive ability vs those who were 1 in 10,000. Individuals also tended to gravitate towards specific fields based upon their respective math/verbal split.
There may be diminishing returns to IQ in many areas of life and specific domains may very well have IQ thresholds above which non-cognitive factors start to matter more. But my takeaway is that there are always areas in life that one is prevented from becoming successful at simply because one may not be smart enough. If there actually is a point beyond which being smarter doesn't confer any additional advantages, I'd wager that it's around the +4 SD threshold.
I agree with Amy that the belief that racial disparities are ipso facto evidence of systemic racism almost certainly invites alternative hypotheses. But I'm not convinced that the only antidote to DEI is race realism. The NBA and NFL are disproportionately dominated by Black players and my impression is that this is accepted without necessarily a public clamor for greater diversity or an assertion that race realism explains the demographics of professional basketball and football.