There may be some criticism of him that is not inaccurate — I haven’t read all of it — but there’s no denying that there’s also plenty that paints him unfairly.
Rash’s own article is guilty of it. For example, he claims that Harris is arguing there’s a definite link between race and IQ. (To quote Rash: “ Harris asserts, as he has many times before, that it simply must be the case that there is significant genetic variation in intelligence across ‘populations’”).
But that is not Harris’s position. Harris’s position is that the data seems to indicate an IQ disparity by race, that we know there are environmental influences that could be causing this, but that we also can’t rule out genetic influences until we have sufficient evidence that allows us to do so. He is agnostic on the question of a genetic cause.
Now, I don’t know if Harris is right about the level of evidence that exists. I haven’t looked at the research, so I don’t know if we have enough data to rule out genetic influences or not. Maybe we do.
But Rash is misrepresenting his position, as are many of Harris’s critics, and that’s a problem.