The reality is that it's very hard to determine to what degree a person has the potential to, and actually does, contribute to the general welfare. It should be the goal of socialization and education to make everyone's actual contribution more proportional to their potential. (There is no meaning for "equal", or any grounds for comparing people, except in terms of what we do, in the context of various communities.) Who we really are is subjective. By any specific criteria you can name, we each fall somewhere on a spectrum of worth. Our judgements of "better" and "worse" are based on which criteria we consider most important.
If I measure the weights of a large number of red delicious and yellow delicious apples, I will almost certainly find an average difference in weight. If I measure other qualities I will find other average differences. If I combine all these studies and observed differences I can make a general decision about which variety I prefer, on the average.
The same must be true for people. Any test is going to show an average difference between races. I have no trouble accepting that orientals score higher on a variety of tests than my caucasian race, and may have some "superior" characteristics. I hope people of other races can accept this as well. But what we forget is the span of characteristics within any one race.
Also we're only talking about genetic differences. It's obvious that the results of most tests, including life itself, are greatly influenced by cultural, educational and other differences (as in environmental influence on apples). I'm much more concerned about my cultural effect than my genetic effect on the next generation. The genetic differences are relatively small and therefore there is no action to be taken, on a racial level.
As long as we live together in one community (which includes city, nation and world communities, and all in between) the first solution to race problems is to encourage judging and treating each person as an individual, rather than in categories. For instance, not only eliminate any mention of race on employment forms, but hold first interviews for "higher" professions, online, without video. Audio would be used only along with software for speech recognition and synthesis.
But this will never completely solve the problem either. As long as we can find differences in people within our communities, we will have devisiveness, finding ways to say we're better than, or at least just as good, as some other category of people. Therefore the final solution is to encourage interbreeding, especially in the more local communities, to blend us into one spectrum of people, with the majority being in the blended middle, a bell curve. If I'd been concerned about the future of my gene pool, maybe I should have married an oriental. (This doesn't leave much hope for eliminating sexual prejudice.)
I don't put much faith in IQ tests as a measure of inherent ability, but more in open-mindedness and creativity. It's apparent that they can't separate out the effects that environment has on IQ, (as in environmental influence on apples). Also, IQ tests are designed to avoid cultural bias, while in real life, we're submerged in same. But, on the more conservative (or racist?) side, I do see some other indicators, and I think we need to face reality.
I have a social hypothesis which is even more politically incorrect because it identifies a factor which has effected different races differently, and thereby suggests conclusions about different races. It may not be original, but not often talked about, and I prefer reality over fiction.
I have nothing against the right of anyone to offer rewards to any person or categories of people, to get genetically sterilized, or to take their own life. I think anyone would be foolish to try privately to wipe out any group of people this way, but a fool and his money should be soon parted. I would support even more, the government offering such a reward to everybody equally. This way the poor of all races and other categories would be more likely to take advantage of the offer. Few groups are really hurt by reducing their numbers, particularly when it's mainly the poor among them who are reduced. I hope there is still some validity in the assumption of a correlation of wealth with intelligence and compassion, or potential contribution to society. Is there a law at present that says a private organization can't make such an offer, at least for gettin sterilized, to whoever may annoy them?