I disagree. There are oftentimes difference in performance between groups, but innate ability is a different thing altogether. But you were correct in putting the word race in parentheses - those identified as "Black" are likely to be mostly European. I've been to Oxford (England, not Mississippi) and one would be very hard pressed (as in WRONG) to perceive differences in academic performance among the "races" (and the "black" and "brown" people there are decidedly less "European" than the minorities in the US).
Anyway, since the vast majority of Americans regardless of race, are woefully ignorant of basic principles of science and math and statistics, it isn't surprising that TBC could be heralded as legitimate science.
That being said, my old landlady taught public schools for years, and used IQ tests. She would often find that some kids could perform well (which does correlate with ability), but whose languange, attitude and demeanor would lead someone at first glance to judge their aptitude negatively. It is one handle that teachers have..
You wouldn't expect to see difference because the members of the different "races" as you say, are all carefully selected for high performance to get into Oxford. Those at Oxford, Cambridge, or the Ivies in the U.S. are a tiny, highly selected (biased) sample, not representative of the general population, at all. As you have described your qualifications in previous posts, you should know that.
Right, which is why I put "racial differences" in quotes. He argues that because those who have a social agenda which mandates equal results between races, use statistics like this to measure racial differences, their goals are invalid.
I never read the "Bell Curve", so I wont pass judgement on it, but this particular defense of it (I don't know how much of the criticism of his book he answered, however) was very convincing.
The whole concept of racial grouping is pretty weak these days anyway, but then thats exactly what social liberals do. That sword can cut many ways...