We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights...

First of all, this justification of civil rights has its roots in the theory of natural rights for humanity which argues that our civil rights are inalienable and fundamentally based on our humanity and thus unassailable. Liberalism has other roots, and the idea of universal rights and individual freedom can be hashed out through utilitarianism as articulated by Mill, as the evolution of free societies based on individual freedoms and universal treatment as articulated by neo-liberals, and even through the social contract, social justice theory of Rawles. Moreover, the idea of natural rights could very well be articulated as a type of Socratic "noble lie" that predicates a conclusion on the inherent nature of humanity on whether it serves humanity well and not whether it's logical basis is unassailable. To get back to this later.

In some sense, one must wonder, even with the anthropomorphic and evolutionary evidence of differential IQs based on race, why the correlation would be confused with causation. If race is correlated to head size and head size is correlated (or causes) IQ differences than why would the policy implications be based on race. Shouldn't policy be based on head size instead of race if the argument if followed? Isn't this the same flaw of saying race is correlated to poverty and poverty causes higher crime and lower educational achievement, so that affirmative action roots itself in bridging racial achievement gaps instead of basing the system of social achievement gaps? If poverty causes lower achievement than poverty is the issue address, not race, even if race is correlated to poverty.

Back to the philosophy with an attempt to disentangle the colloquial, contemporary use of the term "liberal", which is a hodgepodge of progressive, socialist, and classical liberal theory among many others from the classical liberal framework. To analogize with the legal system, people's rights are not determined by merit, how successful a person is or intelligent or in some cases deserving versus undeserving. A person's right by the fifth amendment, along with the right to publicly hear and cross-examine witnesses against them, and many others are not in principle predicated on how much they did to earn these rights. In short, universal legal treatment has it's logical basis in points from forcing the system to be a transparent and somewhat predictable basis for people to make personal choices around (imagine living in a place where the repercussions for your actions are almost entirely uncertain and the implications that would have on individual liberty and expression) to guaranteeing that the government doesn't abuse its power when dealing with individual citizens. Universal treatment allows for individual freedom and racial genetics, whether a pseudoscience or a real science, doesn't undercut the principle of universalism that is so fundamental to a liberal and open society.

To call the science of genetic racial differences somewhat fascist or totalitarian is correct in a sense, because totalitarian dogma says that a person's role in society can be determined on some grounds, whether racial, genetic, physical, religious, or hereditary, whereas liberalism says that a person must be free to carve out their own place in society. If the government chose to form policy based on a system where the social order was determined by any number of tests, by definition in would be a corporatist and engineered society. Liberal belief, predicated in a variety of ways, advocates a system that is blind, so that it is capable of educating and supporting people with universal and open policy. Whether a person is smart or stupid, black or white, the system offers a range of opportunities that can accommodate, again blindly in a sense, how each person is able to engage without forcing a choice of where to go or what to do or be on any individual. As much as I hate to analogize the legal system and social policy in this context, I think it is instructive to see that our system guarantees every individual legal rights irrespective of whether one would consider them sleazy or deserving (not to say that a race could be analogously be considered sleazy or deserving) .

Just because the noble lie that all men are created equal, which flies in the face of genetics as well as the history books, doesn't necessarily hold true does not mean that universal treatment and individual liberty have been conceptually undercut.