I'm going to beat this dying horse a little more. In his last comment on the subject, Sullivan writes:
The question of whether the taboo against research on intelligence between racial groups has hampered research into intelligence in general does not rely on any position about the validity of the racial research. It's an empirical claim. My first stab was an over-reach. Sometimes that happens when you respond as a blogger to a story. But I've walked back that empirical claim (run, I might add, on a hyper-lefty site), and run several posts explaining why, and fail to see how that claim in particular is offensive.
I didn't find Sullivan's claim offensive, but I did find it to be utterly false. Basically, Sullivan erased the existence of a thriving clinical research field. To his credit, he did walk the claim back after receiving some corrective feedback, but still, he seems perturbed that this aspect of the story drew as much attention as it did. Has he forgotten that this aspect of the story was what he himself identified as "the deeper problem" in his first post on the subject?
The right response to unsettling data is to probe, experiment and attempt to disprove them - not to run away in racial panic. But the deeper problem is that the racial aspects of IQ have prevented non-racial research into intelligence, and how best to encourage, study and understand it.
I read that as Sullivan trying to make a point about the extraordinary power of p.c. sensitivities. While I didn't find it offensive, I can understand why some people might have been offended.
Sullivan implicitly turned critics of Jensen and race-IQ research into persecutory ogres who have shut down an entire field of study because of their off-the-charts oversensitivity and influence. That claim amounted to scare-mongering with falsehoods to discredit critics of a narrow band of research that happens to be something of a hobby horse for undeniably racist people.