Tag: meritocracy

By on

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.

By on 1 Comment

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.

By on

Laura Perrins is complaining about the end of our meritocracy. A common worry among Conservative thinkers everywhere. Diversity is ruining our institutions which now disregard talent and ability for skin color and gender. She remembers a day when only the best got their positions through their efforts, talents and intelligence. 

Wait. Perrins believes that we had a meritocracy. Really. Think about it. There was a time when people didn’t consider race and gender and only made decisions based on who was the best person for the job. The trouble is, as I cast my mind back in history in order to understand her point, I couldn’t find much evidence to support her contention. When exactly did the Western World have a meritocracy?

Never is the answer if you are having trouble coming up with a response despite what conservative thinkers are saying. It pains me to have to point this out but in the good old days, both gender and race were a very important consideration on who got the job. People of color and women were eliminated from consideration from the start. How this can be considered a meritocracy is beyond me.