how is putting an emphasis on general intelligence a talking point for racists?
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.
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.
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:
https://www.clearchoiceprep.com/sat-act-prep-blog/the-most-i...
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.
Really, it's about reading.
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?
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.
It is desirable to maintain a college culture that is biased towards people who read about lots of different things, including yachts. Reading is good.
The choice of reading material matters. I don't count "The Cat In The Hat" and "Teen Magazine" the same as "The Grapes of Wrath", "Hamlet", "The Scarlet Letter", and "As I Lay Dying".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bell_Curve#Allegations_of_...
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.