Wilson was being called racist by many back in 1975. I agree with them. He was a racist who tried to dress his racist political views up in scientific jargon. Like William Shockley.
If you don't want people knocking you after your death, don't write books saying whites are genetically superior to oppressed races in the US and that slavery is natural.
I found a reference [0] where Wilson discusses slavery, but he's talking about slavery in ants. The only actual quotation [1] I've found anyone bring up in this discussion shows Wilson had views the exact opposite of what you imply.
[0] https://www.jstor.org/stable/2407145
[1] https://twitter.com/LSMitchell/status/1476447156118638594?s=...
Its not a farfetched presumption that natural selection continued after the emergence of the homo sapien species. What is less likely is the notion that evolution magically stopped above the shoulders while geographically distinct human groups spent thousands of generations adapting physically, culturally, and likely cognitively to drastically different environments.
>OP seems to be trying to whip up a moral panic to suppress speech
These accusations of racism are the moral panic. This is pushback.
Well, the problem is that the science stopped being about "what is more likely" and turned into "what is more pleasant to hear to an average person". Back in the times of physical magazines and written letters, reading a scientific article required non-trivial effort, that worked as a sort of a selection bias, ensuring that the reader would be sufficiently educated, professional and open-minded [1]. These days, finding racism everywhere has become the claim for fame and meaning of life for too many people, so we all now have to take it into account.
The funny part is that genetically were are very similar to the cave people some 50K years ago, and the huge difference in life quality is caused purely by what we learn, what values we teach to our kids, and where we pick our role models. Any genetic differences between races would pale in comparison to something you can learn in your lifetime. But this baby has somehow been thrown out with the water - one side is now convinced that all problems of certain demographics are unfixable and are caused by genetics, the other side attributes 100% of them to an unquantifiable oppressor and thinks that burning books and renaming formulas will somehow solve them, but nobody actually wants to put effort developing personality traits and habits that actually help a person achieve success in life.
[1] as in "willing to examine weird-looking ideas from a rational standpoint, even if they personally don't like them" as opposed to "supporting the politically expected ideas even if they contradict the rational approach"
"Look it up yourself" is the battle cry of a lazy redditor, not someone who's supposedly an academic. Other people don't have to make your argument for you. It's on you to do that.
I’m not even sure that the researchers assume any differences are caused by genetics. I think that’s an important part of the research: what differences exist? what are the causes? can we show some are genetic? can we show some definitely aren’t genetic? what are the outcomes?