Because the data strongly suggests that racial differences in general intelligence exist and exist due to genetic differences between populations. This idea makes certain people almost foam at the mouth (I've witnessed this personally and I'm only barely exaggerating).
Stephen Hsu, former VP of research at MSU for example was recently "canceled" from his job because he stated - in a very milquetoast and reasonable way - that even though he's aware that this kind of thing has been used to oppress people in the past, studies (specifically genome wide association studies) suggest that racial differences in intelligence are real and largely due to underlying genetic differences and not just socio-economic factors.
The genetic differences could be down to socio-economic factors though, such as some of your ancestors having been slaves and restricted in how they could choose a partner.
Not really. It works on the timescale that specific causes are affecting the genepool. Europeans with below average immune systems were removed from the gene pool virtually overnight by the black death. Native Americans famously never had the 'benefit' of this event.
Similarly, there was an enormous selective pressure on Black slaves in the Americas, so it's certainly possible some effects took only a generation to be reflected in the gene pool.
However, when it comes to intelligence, no strong evidence exists saying it is genetically predetermined. Culture and rolemodel of parents are far greater determinants, implying selective pressure is unlikely to affect the general intelligence of a subgroup.
I'm thinking that racism in root is the belief of superiority of one race over another. In the past, tests were designed in ways that (perhaps unintentionally) disadvantaged people of color (for example tests included [white] cultural knowledge). While better tests have been developed, if in the end they show that (even if only on average) there is a minor difference in test scores between whites and blacks, racists will point to it as definitive proof (with no care about the tests' external validity).
Can you please give an example of this supposed cultural knowledge? In particular one that PoC raised in the same country and having the same education would supposedly have a disadvantage in?
My memory of the claims I came across during my time in Educational Psychology Ph.D.: tests in the distant past (early 1900s) were often culturally biased (even if unintentionally). I couldn't quickly find examples, but the gist is language or customs more available to rich white kids than otherwise (think playing golf, polo, etc).
One quick post I came across when looking just now is about "oarsman" and "regatta", words more-likely to be familiar to rich white kids than otherwise:
The complaint about "oarsman" and "regatta" is nonsense.
Supposedly it was racist. Supposedly the white kids are all out doing yacht races, so they alone would know the vocabulary.
That is ridiculous. The portion of the population of white kids that go yachting is minuscule. Practically all white kids don't even know a person who does that. Practically all white kids have never even been on a yacht.
The question was fair. It, and others like it, are a test of reading. If you read well and have read a large variety of books, you'll know the words. The whole point of the test is to see if a student has that sort of college-capable ability (Can you read very well?) so of course the question belongs on the test.
The same goes for polo. Nobody does that. The same is nearly true for golf, and I think the desire to watch Tiger Woods might flip any advantage toward the black kids.
Don't focus on whether it's racist or not - that's not the point. The point is that it is easy for test makers who are not cognizant of culture to slip in questions that to some degree are easier to answer if you have relevant knowledg ef a particular culture.
In my Ph.D. studies in Educational Psychology we were made aware of cultural bias. More than a hundred years ago, when people made tests to assess "intelligence" they may have not been so careful as we try to be now.
Are you sincerely willing to claim that it's impossible to create a test that doesn't make it easier for some subset of the population to outperform another?
It's desirable to create a test with cultural bias. College has a culture. Remember, the test is about the ability to do well in college. Awareness of the cultural expectations will increase the chance of success in college.
If a student couldn't be bothered to learn about the culture, he isn't a good fit.
That said, the questions really are about reading. If you read lots of books, not counting the ones for little kids, you'll have no problem with the questions.
The post you're responding to may have been alluding to the controversy around the book "The Bell Curve" and follow-on discussion, where the questions of race and intelligence became a real hot button.
Most of our attempts to quantify intelligence have shown a correlation with race. That's evidence of something- either bad tests with cultural bias, or differences in intelligence between races.
I think most people recognize that the latter idea would be really bad for society, and thus requires a pretty high bar of evidence to consider, and IQ tests are far from good enough evidence.
Stephen Hsu, former VP of research at MSU for example was recently "canceled" from his job because he stated - in a very milquetoast and reasonable way - that even though he's aware that this kind of thing has been used to oppress people in the past, studies (specifically genome wide association studies) suggest that racial differences in intelligence are real and largely due to underlying genetic differences and not just socio-economic factors.