Yes, exactly. All selection policies (hiring, admissions, contracting, etc.) that say that choosing the best needs to result in proportional representation or i

Yes, exactly. All selection policies (hiring, admissions, contracting, etc.) that say that choosing the best needs to result in proportional representation or it is cheating (not really choosing the best but choosing the "privileged") are based on the ridiculous assumption that all groups have the same mean "goodness" despite variation in "goodness" among individuals. Many of these policies become laws with significant punishment specified for violators. In fact, if there is individual variation, and the groups are clustered based on something more significant than random partition, such as genetic similarity, the groups themselves are frequently going to exhibit differing statistical tendencies in any heritable characteristic because of that genetic similarity. Whether these statistical tendencies differ or not is an empirical question, not a question of political preferences. For law, and coercive power of punishment, to be based on reality rather than political favoritism, the question of whether the group differences are real or not matters. If the group differences are real, punishing people for making choices (again, hiring, admissions, etc.) based on reality instead of on political theory is the real injustice. So the actual, measured average IQ differences between groups matters if you are going to use any assumption about it as a basis for policy decisions.