It was never said that all humans where alike and to be handled the same way. You won't give the same birth control methods to male and female individual for instance. When speaking of equality, I think it is implied equality before society: equal rights, same laws, no irrelevant discrimination (I don't know how it works but I guess sellers are partially chosen depending on how they look and how attractive they are). It would not mean that you mean to be blind to factual and neutral evidence which leads to technical efficiency. From the original article:
> Published research has shown that blacks are more likely than whites to have a blood type that causes sickle cell disease and can protect against malaria, and are more likely to have a certain gene called APOL1, which protects against a parasite that causes sleeping sickness.
It is quite a good example of information that could help put a diagnosis on a person taking into account racial aspects. And I doubt it would count as racist in any way. Because not everything is black or white, they is a grey area:
> She cited new research urging that children be identified based on their genetically predetermined educational abilities and then put in separate schools that could be used to foster different kinds of learning.
This is a border line case: technically, it might mean more proficient teaching using adapted methods for both groups. However, this is also segregation. A way to draw some line would be to avoid discriminating social interactions: in this case, X kids are only interacting with X kids, which make a bias on the population distribution.
tl;dr: calling "racism" on non-biased factual evidence is quite harsh, but we need to be cautious when using such facts
Note: "non-biased" because Nazis did pretend to have factual evidence against Jews, but it was only pseudo-science propaganda (and, well, they only used it to justify arbitrary discrimination)