Given the degree of ignorance and uncertainty involved, though, I think a more interesting discussion centers on the risks involved with what we choose to believe: namely, what's the upside (for individuals, for societies) of assuming "intelligence is fixed" (however interpreted) or that it's not? What's the downside risk of believing the same?
How are these risks and potential gains distributed across segments of the population? Lastly, how do these potential distributions square with our moral intuitions (particularly if one considers oneself a nice Rawlsian liberal committed to a maximin distribution of social benefits...).
It is pretty pointless talking about if intelligence can be raised or not unless we actually define what we mean by intelligence. In the absence of a tight definition all we end up doing is arguing about what each of us thinks intelligence is.
So without knowing how to measure intelligence or what high intelligence is. I don't think I can have an opinion on if intelligence is fixed.