This is true of many things. That doesn’t mean asking the question is tainted. Anyone using either hypothesis as the basis for policy is similarly flawed in my view.
> seems reasonable to be more critical of research that implies some implicit reinforcement of the current power structures
There are massive power structures that benefit from the promulgation of either hypothesis.
This is a tacit endorsement of the current power structures. I don’t think that is _wrong_ just a political position. One I agree with which is uninteresting given the forum.
Your second hypothesis is one we might test. Can we formulate an experiment that asks how often brilliant minds cross class boundaries? Or idiots bring their house down?
Not really, rather than assuming either theory is right just test giving resources to poor and sees if it improves outcomes. If it does and the resources were well spent, preventing people from becoming criminals or other burdens on society has massive value so continue and maybe do more of it. If it did little then don't, why spend on stuff that doesn't help?
That is much better than just assuming one is true and implementing measures mindlessly, like many governments do today. For example there is no evidence that diversity training improves any metrics, yet it is still required by many governments.
When people just assume one explanation you get a lot of effort put into things that doesn't improve the lives of anyone.
It of course shouldn’t be beyond reproach to do the research but it seems reasonable to be more critical of research that implies some implicit reinforcement of the current power structures because that’s what we’d get from bad research too.