Intelligence, impulse control and other genetic differences. That will be deemed racist nowadays despite being supported by evidence.
Similarly I would argue that why is NBA something like 75-80% African-American when they're only 13% of the population. Yet, THIS side of the argument would be ignored by many. Doubt you'd call the NBA racist?
We are not all genetically equal, never have been and never will be. Natural selection can change the situation but that will take some time and depends on the sexual selection in the black community. You still see "nerdy" black men being ridiculed in their own society much more than with other races, so I'm not being too hopeful.
In the end, people can pretend all they want and create legislation to fight it but biology is a hard science.
Well you really disappointed me, I was actually going in on the assumption that you weren't going to go the racist route. So let me ask you, if you take black twins separated at birth and one stays with a black single mom living in public housing and the other goes to a successful, college educated family living in the suburbs, you think that due to genetic "impulse control" and intelligence (would love to see the "evidence" of that, btw) then 100 out of 100 times they'll both end up at the same place success-wise by age 50? You don't think environment, lack of role models, social norms, quality of education... all have an influence on success? If you've got a population of people who starts out in a shitty condition it's damn hard to get out of it as a newborn baby by your bootstraps without at least a set of role models and mentors and culture to get you there, it's pure hubris to believe you and I would be equally successful as we are if we'd been born in that environment.
That's before you even start to talk about the daily challenges you face as an educated black adult where full-on racism kicks in. Do you honestly think that you, with your idea that as a population blacks have lower overall intelligence and impulse control could, even if you strove to be completely and totally unbiased with an individual, give a fair interview evaluation to a black versus a white job candidate? You may be interested to read the story of switching to blind auditions in orchestra candidate selection (
https://gap.hks.harvard.edu/orchestrating-impartiality-impact-“blind”-auditions-female-musicians). Historically professional classical musicians were highly weighted toward men. Those who hired musicians were most certainly not sexist, they truly believed they were completely impartial and that women as a class were equally suited to be musicians as men. And yet despite women making up a large number of auditions they were significantly under represented as hires. As an experiment, several symphonies switched to blind auditions, with the musician behind a curtain and no indication to those hiring what their sex was. Lo and behold, suddenly the number of female musicians hired increased almost fourfold. The participants were surprised, because as I said they honestly believed they held no discriminatory thoughts toward women, but clearly in practice they were indeed discriminating. Again, I ask you if these people who didn't hold ideas that a class of people were inferior as musicians couldn't be unbiased in selection despite their best efforts not to be, could someone who honestly believes that blacks as a group have impulse control issues and lower intelligence fairly select between blacks and non-blacks in interviews?
Could it be that a sport with defined rules and almost no subjectivity involved is one of the few places where a person can succeed or fail purely based on merit and skill at that task? Could it be that black people would be as successful at business as they are at sports if they grew up with role models that pushed for that, schools that gave them the background they needed, and a playing field that was as much of a meritocracy as the basketball court?
