My God, what a turd of an argument. Yes, David Brooks is a schlub. But Brook (Brooks singular?) is as dense as he is arrogant. You could not write a stronger argument for young writers restraining themselves until they get a little life experience behind them. Research helps as well.
Arguing the question of the heritability of IQ and referencing someone "named Jensen" is like arguing economics and referring to "some guy named Hayek." What a putz.

You make as if Jensen's landmark controversial study just popped up and foundered like some anomalous blip, when the one standard deviation difference in IQ between blacks and whites (which Jensen and countless others have been ostracized for refusing to ignore or conjure fanciful arguments to obscure) remains, stubbornly.
So much so that the tack had to become, a la the quack Stephen Jay Gould, that IQ in fact doesn't exist, and that evolution doesn't affect cognition and had somehow stopped, for humans at least, about the time it would have inconveniently shaped us into distinct races. Think about it: body types, hair, complexion, size, resistances to disease; all of these things having managed to shape us into the remarkable diversity of races that is humanity, yet somehow none of this affects behavior. As if your brain was just grey goo. Well, the next step, arguing against the existence of race, becomes perversely logical in this frantic, faith-based order.

Few within the relevant disciplines ever took Gould seriously, yet still he is quoted approvingly, usually along with Richard Lewonton's fallacy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewontin's_Fallacy; the more we learn about genetics, the more absurd these people become. And well deserved. They've grown wealthy telling people what they want to hear and contributing not only to destroying careers and livelihoods, but in effect thwarting scientific endevour and, yes, promoting psuedo-science.

We are coming up hard against the limits of social mobility precisely because we are becoming more meritocratic. Nature is the most un-egalitarian thing imaginable.
It's no longer enough to simply say that an idea or an observation has "racist" implications. This is a logical fallacy, arguing from consequences: young David doesn't like what's implied by an idea or a finding therefore it must be false. This point and sputter routine is wearing thin.