Some believe that the notion of meritocracy arose in Great Britain at the end of the nineteenth century. Apparently, it was offered as an antidote to aristocratic privilege. Instead of choosing government servants by their breeding, the British decided to use an examination. It was the only way to ensure that the best and the brightest were running the country.
Opponents of meritocracy complain that if it’s all based on an exam it’s based on the ability to master the art of test taking. Being good on tests does not necessarily bespeak good character. Thus, you risk having a bureaucracy filled with technocrats who do not see their jobs in terms of their responsibilities to serve the nation.
One recalls that this version of meritocracy was really invented by the Chinese over a millennium ago. Even today, Chinese students work themselves to the bone—no hooking up for them—in order to do well on the examinations that determine their futures.
On the other hand, the career path of the students who excel at exams might also depend on the prestige accorded to government service. In some places there is more prestige; in other places, less.
As for the moral character argument, we note that when students are required to work all the time to excel on the exams, they will also develop a strong work ethic, a will to persevere and a sense of family honor. After all, no one really does any of it for his own personal gratification. He does it to sustain the honor of his family. If he is not very well paid for government work, he is probably motivated, in part, by the wish to serve the public.
Britain’s sister republic, America, has long since sacrificed mush of its own meritocracy on the bonfire of diversity. Of course, there are still islands of merit, but, for the most part, we are more worried about how diverse we are than about how good we are. Naturally, we keep saying that a diverse school or workplace will be better than one that is less diverse, but anyone who believes that is obviously missing a few little grey cells.
As it happens, in the worlds of commerce and industry, on the battlefield and in the marketplace, you do not get extra credit for diversity.
To measure the absence of meritocracy, we examine one of the few places it still exists. Take the example of the admissions test that get you admitted (or not) to New York City’s better high schools… like Stuyvesant High School. One notes-- as one has occasionally-- that the breakdown of the entering class at Stuyvesant is something like 70% Chinese (or Asian), 20% white, 6% Hispanic, 4% black.
As it happens, the students who go to Stuyvesant normally go on to attend great colleges and universities. And after they do so, they go to work on Wall Street or on Silicon Valley. If you are that smart and that capable why would you go to work in the government?
In America, government bureaucrats do not constitute a special meritocracy. Largely, because the jobs do not bring very much prestige or income. They are not chosen by merit, but for reasons that have more to do with politics and diversity and ideological commitment.
When the Asian graduates of Stuyvesant eventually get jobs, they are attracted to industries where they can be judged on their merits.
And yet, they also suffer. They are the victims of diversity quotas. An Asian student needs to have near perfect test scores and GPA to be admitted to Stanford while a minority student will easily be admitted with SAT scores that are hundreds of points lower (on a 1600 point scale.)
This means that minority students at major schools are seen as not having earned their way. Thus, their presence does not provoke respect. It promotes resentment, especially among those whose friends and family members missed out. When your brother was rejected with much higher test scores and a much higher GPA, you are likely to see students from minority groups as interlopers, as having taken something that they did not earn.
If you do not fall within a class of the underprivileged you will suffer discrimination on the basis of your race or ethnic origin. This applies especially to white males.
People are protesting about our rigged political system. Yet, beyond campaign finance, the diversity mania systematically rigs the system. You cannot have diversity and meritocracy at the same time. But when you overthrow meritocracy in the name of diversity the people who gain their jobs and their careers by reason of diversity do not receive the same respect as do those who have earned their places. And when things go wrong, we cannot comfort ourselves with the notion that the best people are in charge.
Diversity as currently practiced is no longer about fair play, where everyone takes the same test or runs the same race. If the outcomes of competition do not look like America, diversity proponents insist that this is proof that the system is rigged. If some people do better than others because they are wealthier, we are told that we must remedy this disparity by redistributing income.
No one pays too much attention to the fact that the Asian children who excel at competitive tests rarely come from wealthy homes.
Since we have been brainwashed into believing that every group be equally represented at all levels of society, we must rig the system to ensure that it happens.
If women cannot compete with men in the military, we change the rules. If women cannot complete the entrance examination for firefighters, we change the tests. If minority candidates do not measure up, we throw away the measuring rods. If women do not work as hard as men because they choose to spend more time with their children, we invent a specious notion like work/life balance to persuade men to work less. And then we insist that women who work less than men and who have less ambition than men receive the same compensation.
Of course, this can only happen when the diversity bureaucrats take over the labor market. It is no longer a question of who works harder, longer and better but of whether the proportions are politically correct.
If the disparities are clear, the cause must be a culture that shows white and Asian men succeeding more than others.
It’s all about manipulating minds by controlling appearances. We must now produce television shows where women warriors working just as effectively as men warriors, where women police officers easily subdue male suspects who are twice their size, where the smartest guy in the room is always a minority, where the minority is always unjustly accused, and where nearly every ensemble cast contains one of each ethnic group and gender.
By the lights of the diversity mongers the only reason why we do not have more minority candidates in positions of importance is that we have not seen enough of them in such positions. We can rectify the situation by producing more television shows where the cast fulfills the ideal of diversity.
If you refer to track record, current or historical, you will be denounced as a bigot. Reality does not matter to people who want the world to look like their aesthetic vision.
So, to the feeble minded among us, the fault lies with racism and sexism and whatever other –ism suits you today. Because without these sins, invariably committed by white males, the world would achieve a greater aesthetic balance… which is what matters. Achievement be damned.
Evidently, the American government is not run by people who value merit. Diversity has taken over the government. And it has happened because the American people, with their votes, made it happen. Never think that propaganda never works. Today,And you are not allowed to criticize or critique a black president or his black advisors, lest you be accused of racism.
And diversity has also taken over universities, where scores of people have been hired on the basis of their race and gender, to say nothing of their radical leftist ideological commitments.
They no longer teach Shakespeare and Chaucer because they do not know enough about them. They prefer indoctrinating students with the ideology of diversity. More than a few academics and public intellectuals owe their careers and their reputations to the fact that they belong to a disadvantaged group.
It has been imposed on the American people by media figures and academics who excel at name-calling, at defamation and at slander. One might suggest that they resort to such recourses because it is the best they can do.
And yet, those who attack Donald Trump for being racist and sexist seem to be failing. One reason might be that the diversity mongers are like the boy who cried wolf. If you spend your time and your mental energy in an endless exercise in name-calling, after a while your slanders will lose their edge. If everyone is racist, then the label no longer means very much. When Nicholas Kristof can do nothing more than denounce Trump for racism, he is not making a cogent point. He is exposing his own feeblemindedness.
In effect, today’s America is increasingly rigged against certain kinds of people. It’s a form of corruption that impacts people as much if not more than the influence of Wall Street money.
The system is not rigged everywhere. There are still islands where merit counts for something. Silicon Valley and Wall Street are high on the list. Politics is not.
People hold jobs as sinecures. If they belong to the right group they do not need to accomplish anything at all. Hillary Clinton would be nowhere without her gender and her husband. And yet, people keep saying, shamelessly, that she is eminently qualified to be president of the United States. It's magical thinking.
It is such a rank piece of stupidity that it takes one’s breath away. And yet, the Republican nominee, however adept he has been at making money and promoting his brand, has no ral qualifications for the office of the presidency.