What exactly is wrong with him saying this: "Race is almost exactly the opposite problem: the signal in the data is so strong that you can't help but pick it up, even after you censor everything you can think of." As far as I can see it is a reasonable thing to say. Why not just come out and say: "I am on ideologically opposed to you and here is a threat of censorship." What is more intellectually curious than the idea that - as much as we want to - we can't remove a variable in many analyses because of its statistical significance?