You're right that this article is a bit hard to read in places. But as for your "reading between the lines", give me some reason to believe you're not just projecting your pre-existing assumptions onto this article. What did he actually say that let you read between the lines.
He has no real criticism of his original article. What he says about it is incoherent, not merely hard to read, as I point out in my comment.
And he makes reference to nature vs nurture, which is completely irrelevant to the actual issue, and only makes sense in the context of a political apology.
where does he say that specifically? He refers to statisticians helping to do further analysis on the data, but I don't see where they showed that the main claim (that the test is predictive of success in the course) is refuted by statisticians.
