Going from his examples, cultural norms can help some blacks outperform other blacks. But it doesn't actually allow blacks to outperform whites. If his examples are representative, the natural variations of the "inspiration" part are actually similar in size to the "perspiration" part of the equation.
Actually it is not possible to prove or disprove that from the data presented (which is not data at all), but one can envisage data that is consistent with his position. For the sake of argument, say Asian-American kids study 20 hours a week, Caucasian kids study 10 hours a week, West Indian origin black kids study 5 hours a week, and African American kids study 3 hours a week. Then both his statements would be correct - performance is related to study hours, not innate talent, and West Indian kids would outperform other black kids but not white kids.
[Of course we are grossly oversiplifying, the suggestion is that wider cultural norms such like intactness of families are the contributor, not just study hours].
I don't know whether he is right or not, but it's not possible to decide he is wrong by the fact that are included just in that article.
Actually it is not possible to prove or disprove that from the data presented (which is not data at all), but one can envisage data that is consistent with his position. For the sake of argument, say Asian-American kids study 20 hours a week, Caucasian kids study 10 hours a week, West Indian origin black kids study 5 hours a week, and African American kids study 3 hours a week. Then both his statements would be correct - performance is related to study hours, not innate talent, and West Indian kids would outperform other black kids but not white kids.
[Of course we are grossly oversiplifying, the suggestion is that wider cultural norms such like intactness of families are the contributor, not just study hours].
I don't know whether he is right or not, but it's not possible to decide he is wrong by the fact that are included just in that article.