Daniel Markovits explaining why the idea of meritocracy is just a way for rich people to keep their advantages. It is only a meritocracy if everyone starts out with the same education. People who get better schools get advantage. Now if all students went to schools of equal quality than yes viva the meritocracy. But that isn’t the case. Don’t tell me that parents who are paying $50,000 a year to educate their child think that this education is equal to a basic public school education. They pay to give their child a leg up. This isn’t meritocracy.
Category: meritocracy
The Elusive Meritocracy yet Again.
Glen Reynolds, Conservative/Libertarian pundit, had a meltdown about Jacob Savage’s The Lost Generation. Reynolds missed a lot of Savage’s point as did many other conservatives (see my previous post). Indeed Savage says he was an ordinary talent and he holds no grudges against the women and people of color who got the jobs he failed to get. It was bad luck for him that he was born during a time that more aggressive measures to right previous wrongs were being taken. He, unfortunately, didn’t make the cut.
Reynolds thinks that a whole generation was hollowed out because some white men didn’t get the jobs. While personally disappointing to some, Reynolds, in no way, proves the generational disaster he contends occurred. White men didn’t get all the jobs but somebody else did. So how was a whole generation hollowed out because some members of that generation didn’t get the jobs. The jobs were filled. People performed the tasks. TV shows were produced. History 101 taught to students. The only difference is the more of these jobs were done by women and people of color. How is this a disaster?
Reynolds unspoken contention is that the best people aren’t performing the tasks. Does Reynolds mean that when white men aren’t over represented in employment statistics, then the best people aren’t getting the jobs. For example, a piece of data that Reynolds refers to from Savage’s article points to a significant decline in white men presently in jobs in television writing. Yes, there was a significant decline in white males in these jobs but, then, what about the other piece of the data Savage writes about, and Reynolds ignores — the over representation of white males in these positions in the past. He doesn’t seem the least bit bothered that there was a deliberate exclusion of women and people of color from these positions that favored white men.
Also, these jobs are prestige jobs. An awful lot of people are vying for them and an awful lot of people are disappointed when they fail to get them. Even in the good old days when white men were over represented. Even today, an awful lot of women and people of color aren’t getting these prestige jobs. A lot of very talented people have to dust themselves off and find a different path. This has been going on since the founding of the Republic. Not everyone gets their dream job. Why Reynolds thinks this is such a national disaster is unclear. The only thing that Reynolds keeps yammering on about is that a white man didn’t get the job and white men are somehow always the best candidates for the job — even, say, jobs writing about a Black Woman on a television show.
This is a personal disappointment that most people will survive not a societal disaster. Since women and people of color now have a chance to get these jobs, there is even more competition for these coveted jobs. And this is a good thing. We are hearing from people who never had a voice and are now able to express it.
But what about the meritocracy? Give me a fucking break. By all means, lets work for a better process but the world isn’t coming to an end because for a very short time in the history of the country, we are, after all, talking about ten years here, white men have had more trouble getting jobs in the studio and academia. The DEI model is under attack and is likely to be replaced with a different model. Let us hope it is fairer. But it will not be perfect and things like family connections and money will still help people who have these advantages to get jobs that more talented people should get. There is no meritocracy solution that will stop this. So the next time Reynolds cries about the absence of meritocratic values in making decisions, he knows what orifice he can stick his whining ass.
Sorry White Men but Life is Unfair
The Conservative Press is agog at Jacob Savage’s the Lost Generation. Savage details the trials and tribulations of White men trying to break into Academia or Cultural positions right now. It is all DEI and racial discrimination. I am afraid they are emphasizing only one aspect of his argument while downplaying and missing some of his more salient points. They are going on about how lesser candidates who are women or people of color are getting the jobs that should rightfully being going to White men. This was not Savage’s point at all.
Savage points out that this problem exists for young white men and not older white men. Older White men already have their jobs in Academia and in Cultural institutions while younger White men are vying for open positions. The problem for younger White men is that these positions, in the past, skewed disproportionately to White men. This past discrimination worked against women and people of color. So if you presently have a staff of 10 and 7 of them are white men, what happens when a position becomes available and your institution is interested in diversity. The young white men are at a disadvantage. Not because of women and people of color but because the institution already has too many white men.
Is this unfair? Yes, absolutely. But how can you achieve two varied goals — a diversified work force and being absolutely fair to everyone. Conservatives say that diversity shouldn’t be considered a factor at all. The only thing that matters is who is the better candidate. Well, that would be nice but how exactly does the best candidate always get the job?
For example, Savage discusses the hiring of television writers. How does one determine who is a better writer? Particularly if one of your goals is to broaden the stories you tell to include more stories about women and people of color. Who better to tell these tales than women and people of color? White men can, of course, write women characters but then I am betting than women can write even better women characters. So, then, who is the best candidate for the job? The man or the woman?
How does one determine the best candidate in Academia? Is it teaching? Is it research? Or is it the old tried and true old boy network where connections with the people who make the decisions help you get the job? Why should groups who have been discriminated in the past, trust that you are hiring the best candidate? The word of the person making the decision? After how many white men are hired does one question the process? Five? Ten? Twenty? Never. And after twenty or so white men are hired and discrimination is determined, what happens to all of those candidates that were overlooked? Tough luck.
By the way, there isn’t only one perfect person for the job. Indeed this is rarely true. The difficult decision comes generally because there are several people who could do the job well. This is particularly true with jobs that everybody wants. Jobs in Academia and Culture have always had stiff competition. They carry salary, prestige, and power. In the past, a lot of white men vied with other white men for these positions. And a lot of white men were disappointed. Now the competition has expanded to include women and people of color. This means that the competition is fierce and there is even a bigger chance of not getting your dream job. Savage writes at the end of his essay: “The truth is, I’m not some extraordinary talent who was passed over; I’m an ordinary talent—and in ordinary times that would have been enough.”
The sad story is that talented White men are used to getting the job and they aren’t anymore. Their expectation did not match the reality of our present world. It is a difficult lesson to learn but life, as we are constantly being reminded, is unfair. Is it fair that some parents can afford private tutors for their children who may have fallen a step behind in class while poor parents with a child in the same situation can not? Is it fair that some schools are direct conduits to Ivy League Universities while other schools are not? Is it fair that some parents make a significant donation to a university which gets their children into an elite university while a poorer parent with an equally gifted child can not? Is it fair that some children are well fed when they arrive at school and poorer children are not?
I could go on but you get the point. Life is unfair in a lot of different ways. Why this particular unfairness is so important while other unfairnesses can be ignored is informative of the motives of the people complaining right now. I mean if the unfairness in the education a person receives throughout their life can be equalized as best we can then we wouldn’t have to discussing the unfair treatment of White men now. It wouldn’t be a problem because everyone would believe that everybody had a fair chance from the start. But we aren’t talking about the differences in education that people receive, are we? I wonder why?
We do not live in a perfect world. There are plenty of bigoted people in important position making employment decisions. Processes devised to protect groups who have suffered discrimination in the past skew the process against the people who did not suffer discrimination in the past. So maybe we look at how to do the process better as we learn more. But, please, please don’t talk to me about the loss of our meritocracy. Because it is bull shit and you know it is bull shit. We never had one and we never will. All we can do is continue to work at making it better. And we will never ever succeed.
What Meritocracy?
Heather MacDonald writes that Donald Trump took “the most important step it can to restore meritocracy. to American society” by eliminating disparate-impact. When exactly was there a meritocracy in the United States? Certainly no time before 1964 when discrimination against people of color and women was legal. Not directly after the passage of Civil Rights laws in 1964 when White resistance to the new laws was so fierce it required the implementation of Affirmative Action in order to ensure that Whites complied with the new law. Since MacDonald finds any tool that aids people of color a boost is an affront to meritocracy, it certainly isn’t the recent past So MacDonald needs to identify the golden age of meritocracy in USA because from the evidence I can see, there never has been a meritocracy.
MacDonald glosses over 200 years of American History. She assumes that the 1964 Civil Rights ended discrimination and nothing more needed to be done. For her racial prejudice is obvious, racists are obnoxious assholes in a Ku Klux Klan robe screaming the N word. It certainly couldn’t be nice middle class whites who hire employees or admit students to Ivy League colleges. They wouldn’t be caught dead in a Ku Klux Klan robe, so how could they be prejudiced.
The advantage of the public bigots is that they are easy to identify. The problem is the more prevalent form of racism that Blacks encounter is from polite and powerful White who, just the same, might be disinclined to hire someone different from them. They don’t say we are picking a White over a Black. They know the game. They say that the White guy is just more qualified for the job than the Black guy. For this reason, discrimination is difficult to prove. This is the barrier that Blacks face. MacDonald doesn’t appear to be bothered much by this more subtle form of racism or even acknowledge that it might exist.
Disparate-impact was one of the tools that the government used to show discrimination. If an employer has never hired Blacks, year after year, in a community where the population is 25% Black, then the government can see that there might be a problem with discrimination in hiring. Without disparate impact, how does MacDonald propose to identify non-compliant businesses and schools?
She doesn’t. She views discrimination as a phantom problem that doesn’t occur any more so there is no reason to investigate. People are only looking for the best – Black, White, Man, Woman. Race and Gender don’t matter only quality. Well, maybe, but how do we know this is happening unless we evaluate?
Finally, for the record, there will never be a meritocracy as long as rich families hand over their businesses to their children. It is never going to happen as long as some people have connections and others don’t. It never is going to happen as long as people with money can buy their children’s ways into universities. It never is going to happen when White middle class people can avoid “bad” school districts. It never is going to happen as long as poor Black children are given a second rate educations while White middle class children are given a first rate one.
How does MacDonald feel about those problems? Until she addresses them, I don’t believe that she gives a damn about meritocracy.
Mind Stewing, Fingers Typing 