He says nothing that is not consistent with believing that race and crime are statistically correlated, without implying a necessary causal role. Given that he is rejecting the idea as unsound, you are second guessing which of several grounds for unsoundness he could be using as a basis for rejection, and assuming he chose the one that deserves the most criticism. Which is an unreasonable assumption.

He is certainly being evasive about just who introduced race into the debate, sure. But frankly, you are drawing a long bow, when there are plenty of better things to harrass Bennett over.