Over at Slate, William Saletan revisits the fundamental truth of race and genes — some genes are more common in some races than in others, but with pretty much any trait, there is significant overlap — and concludes that race is of diminishing scientific importance.

That’s true enough in the research he cites; one genetic variation, present in 40 percent of blacks but only 2 percent of whites, makes blacks less likely to respond to beta blockers. However, rather than giving all whites and no blacks the medicine, it’s more efficient to test directly for the gene and ignore race.

But he uses this to say we should refrain from all racial analysis, and applies this logic to higher-ed preferences, and I can’t for the life of me see how it makes any sense:

In the age of genetics, egalitarianism doesn’t mean you have to deny differences in racial averages. It means you have to beware the injustice this kind of grouping and averaging does to individuals. …
Drawing a line against racial analysis doesn’t solve all the problems I raised about inequality. In fact, it creates new problems. … On the left, it raises the question of whether any policy, including affirmative action, should be based on race. I don’t know where those questions will lead. But I’m pretty sure drawing this line is the right first step.

The arguments for affirmative action have nothing to do with genetics whatsoever; they have to do with historical grievances and diversity. Race being a good or bad proxy for gene A or B doesn’t change the fact that the U.S. enslaved and repressed blacks, and it doesn’t change the fact that blacks disproportionately face environmental obstacles today.

This isn’t to defend affirmative action, just to point out that this argument isn’t particularly strong.