Biology or Sin? An Summary and Condemnation of the Sad State of the Discourses Concerning Racial Differences

When we look out at our society, we observe manifest differences between races in intellectual, physical, and socio-economic performance. (These differences can be derived from results in standardised tests, occupational success, poverty, family cohesion, crime and violence, among others). 

Why do we observe manifest differences between races in intellectual, physical, and socio-economic performance, and in particular, between whites and their non-white counterparts? There are four (4) main explanations for why:

1. Genetics (G)

2. Culture (C)

3. Systematic Racism (SR)

4. Mix of the above (M)

This is a hard question, and the progressive offers SR as the only explanation. In fact, if one gestures at any other explanation, then one will become persona non grata in most social circles. The state of play is thus:

If one entertains G, then one is deemed a racist. However, if one also entertains M, then one, by extension, is also entertaining G and is still open to charges of racism. 

If one argues for C, then one is arguing that some cultures are worse than others (which is effectively racist), and if one is trying to consider the circumstances that lead to differences in C, one either ends up at G (which is racist) or SR. 

So, G and M are out of bounds of acceptability, and C is reduced to SR. 

Biology is excluded, as is culture. All we're left with is white sin.

This seems to be an illegitimate response to inquiry. Indeed, there is barely any inquiry at all. 

Furthermore, there is no reason to suspect that 'acceptability' is co-extensive with the truth of such empirical states of affairs. The world has no obligation to be acceptable to us - though we are obliged to make it so. If one doesn't find something acceptable, then one needn't accept it. That said, there are better and worse ways of going about this: some require adaptation, some require outright rejection. But in each case, one must confront the truth.

And it is this part that I think drives this controversy: this isn't about inquiry. This is about justice - of some sort. The normative constraints that have been imposed upon this debate have shut down legitimate avenues of inquiry in the service of a larger goal of social justice, from the outset. 

Given that so much blame is being heaped on the backs of white people, they, as defendants in their case have the right to participate in this process, and to obtain and present exculpatory evidence. If SR is the only answer, and is the others are being a priori kept off the table, then the defendants are being denied justice since the only option they have is their own sinfulness.

Additionally, if the parameters of the debate are being artificially restrained, as shown above, then we're not engaging truth-seeking. 

Well, the problem here is that justice cannot be executed without truth.