I would never advocate for treating an individual as anything else than an individual. Just because an individual belongs to group X does not mean, obviously, that he will exhibit the average traits of group X. And of course, there is much overlap between different groups, so it would be illogical to instate policies that target all members of just one group in particular.
All three of the policies you have proposed sound good to me. But I would already be more than satisfied if we stopped the current trends towards trying to "equalize through force".
As a concrete example, right now there is a pressure for many high performing high schools across the USA to drop standardized testing in favor of quotas and lotteries, because of the low enrollment numbers of blacks and hispanics. The justification usually given for this is that, starting from the axiom that all groups are of equal ability on average, the discrepancy in numbers can only be due to some kind of racist bias in the methods of evaluation, namely standardized testing (a theory which is unable to explain the fact that asians are even more overrepresented than whites at those schools). I personally believe that this is a wrong interpretation of the numbers, that the reason for the discrepancy is to a great degree due not to some kind of bias in merit-based admission policies, but due to differences in average ability, and that the inevitable consequence of the lowering of standards which will result from the introduction of quotas and lotteries will be the destruction of the outstanding academic quality of these institutions.
The reason why the validity of IQ as a measure of intelligence (and even the concept of "intelligence" itself in some cases) is so vociferously denied by many is precisely due to its very important implications for social policy (answers to the "So what?" question). That IQ is a valid measure of intelligence, is rooted in an individual's genetics, and that individuals and ethnic groups vary in their IQ (or average IQ, for the latter), would necessarily have to imply a complete re-evaluation of the interpretation of social inequality, and of the approaches towards mitigating it.
I personally think that this re-evaluation is absolutely necessary, because the current model of social inequality, in which any differences between individuals and groups are attributed to environmental or cultural factors, cannot hope to ever lead to constructive policies aimed towards helping all people - regardless of their genetic potential for intelligence - to achieve their best. Even worse, certain policies which are now being advocated - such as the elimination of standardized testing - are actively harmful.
To answer your categorical imperative: yes, I would much prefer to live in a society where genetic differences in the intelligence potential between individuals and groups is acknowledged, because it would lead to far more sensible social policies which would benefit all - high IQ or low IQ.
Finally, even if you consciously choose not to care about IQ, eventually reality will rear its ugly head and force you to take it into consideration if current social policies cause a lowering of average IQ. If there is such a drift towards a lowering of IQ of the general population, whether through higher reproduction rates of the low IQ segments of the population or immigration, many of the amenities which you take for granted, such as a functioning infrastructure, which can only be supported by a population which is above a certain IQ threshold, will start to deteriorate to such a degree that the IQ problem will become impossible to ignore.
All three of the policies you have proposed sound good to me. But I would already be more than satisfied if we stopped the current trends towards trying to "equalize through force".
As a concrete example, right now there is a pressure for many high performing high schools across the USA to drop standardized testing in favor of quotas and lotteries, because of the low enrollment numbers of blacks and hispanics. The justification usually given for this is that, starting from the axiom that all groups are of equal ability on average, the discrepancy in numbers can only be due to some kind of racist bias in the methods of evaluation, namely standardized testing (a theory which is unable to explain the fact that asians are even more overrepresented than whites at those schools). I personally believe that this is a wrong interpretation of the numbers, that the reason for the discrepancy is to a great degree due not to some kind of bias in merit-based admission policies, but due to differences in average ability, and that the inevitable consequence of the lowering of standards which will result from the introduction of quotas and lotteries will be the destruction of the outstanding academic quality of these institutions.