Meritocracy. It’s an aspirational term. We’ve been hearing about meritocracy a lot lately in our political discourse and as it relates to our political agenda. Meritocracy is an ideal concept; who wouldn’t love to have it? The question regarding the concept, however, is whether or not it’s achievable; especially in the present time and given our current cultural conditions and climate. Have we come far enough as a people, in how we think of and approach each other, especially those who we may not perceive as “like us” to truly attain meritocracy?
For me the answer to that question is unmistakably and decisively, NO. Over the past decade or so we’ve observed many factors of life in our country and in the world that we’d thought already proven out that have been flipped on their heads and turned upside down. This idea and concept of meritocracy being achievable in our country I believe to be one of them. I also believe the reasoning behind the pursuit to be overtly hypocritical.
There are several hypocritical elements to advocating for this system based purely on merit. I’ll start with the principal argument in favor of implementing the approach, from everything I’ve read and heard. Advocates of meritocracy argue that things have gotten unfair, and that the attempts to level the playing field have gone too far. In essence, they’re saying that the model that was implemented to encourage and ensure diversity and inclusion has gotten discriminatory. Their access to opportunities and inclusion have been limited based purely on the demographic in which they fall.
Many of us whom are minorities, in a minority demo, or women may raise a brow at this argument, given historical context. Women’s Suffrage, the Abolitionist Movement, Civil Rights, Black Power, Worker’s Rights, Equal Housing, LGBTQ+, Black Lives Matter, Me Too; you name it. All these movements were based on this same core principle, fairness and equality; not to be discriminated against or abused based on prejudices, or the demographic to which you might belong.
How ironic is it that the meritocracy proponents are saying they need the same thing, while being against any societal element which encourages diversity and inclusion? Not only are they advocating for diminishing intentional inclusivity, but they’ve also taken actions with the intent to eliminate it all together. Not just under the guise of “they’ve gotten enough, it’s our turn,” but more so, “they’ve taken enough of what’s ours.”
Rarely have I heard the argument in favor of meritocracy framed to imply that all people should have equal access to all things, instead the argument has sounded more like “those currently receiving are less deserving and less effective.” In other words, those “not like us” are the problem, so they don’t deserve what they have or equal access to the opportunities and things that I feel I deserve. It would be easy to get the sense that any person from a minority group or any woman not outwardly in support of the “anti” agenda was in position due to DEI, therefore they were less qualified or less deserving.
I have heard arguments that are less in opposition to equal rights and inclusion efforts that are more so centered around the idea that demo factors shouldn’t be considered at all, which is what that argument should be. That’s one that sounds great on its face, and it would be hard to argue that it shouldn’t be the case. The fault I find in the logic of the argument, however, is that it implies equity and inclusion measures are no longer needed to aide in ensuring equal opportunity.
This argument may be more credible in my opinion if assessing who should have access was only done on paper. Let’s be honest though, some names are indicators of ethnicity and at some point, in the process of pursuing an opportunity, you’ll be seen or will likely have to disclose info that at least make Race, Gender, or Ethnicity known to the opportunity provider. We’d also be honest to acknowledge that it’s human nature to favor those like you.
Continuing along the vein of honesty, if you think about it, you’d likely conclude that you’ve seen this play out in life anecdotally. People clique, and they do have preferences that they favor when aligning themselves with other people. See it in your own life or find it as a fact of behavioral science. If you still believe in data, the data bears just that; though I know many would still argue these aren’t facts.
Science and data aren’t perfect, but they’re much more accurate and reflective of the truth than theories and unsubstantiated ideas that get passed around in words and text and claimed as facts.
According to the Survey of Consumer Finances, in 2022, the median wealth of White households was roughly six times that of Black households, and four times that of Hispanic households. The median White household held $284,310 in wealth, the median Black household held $44,100, the median Hispanic household held $62,120. For every dollar a typical White worker earned in America in 2022, a Black worker earned 84 cents, and a Hispanic or Latino worker earned just 76 cents, according to the Bureau of Labor.
The Black employment rate was nearly eight percentage points behind the White rate in 2022. Jobless rates were higher than the national rate that year for people who are American Indian and Alaska Native (6.6 percent), Black or African American (5.5 percent), and people categorized as being of Two or More Races (5.4 percent). This is all according to the Bureau of Labor statistics.
White job candidates are significantly more likely to get hired than those from other racial and ethnic groups. Studies have shown that White candidates are almost twice as likely to be hired, according to a consulting firm Paradigm, and some studies show White candidates being 53% more likely to get a callback and 145% more likely to get a job offer, according to a 2024 Northwestern University sociology study. Meritocracy proponents would argue that we don’t still need them, but by looking at these numbers it would seem as if Affirmative Action and DEI haven’t worked well enough.
When you combine all these factors, it would be hard not to conclude that, even with equity and inclusion measures in place, we haven’t reached a place of true equality. So, how are we to believe that without these things, there won’t be even more disparity? After all, who will determine who or what has more merit? Equity and inclusion measures are designed to combat unintentional exclusion as much as they are to create intentional inclusion.
Can you imagine what these disparities would look like without an inclusion agenda? It looks like we’re shaping up to find out. My bet is that we’ll find even more disparity in these data and statistics, and that the disparities will continue to grow as long as our agenda is to allow opportunity providers to decide who’s more deserving based purely on “merit.” A qualifying criterion that the decision maker would solely be allowed to determine. Are we to expect groups within the workforce to be reflective of the demographics in America when that happens? Do we expect minority candidates to be equally considered for lending, real estate, positions of leadership, business opportunities; etc.?
The exact statistics and data may not be known, but that there are still discrepancies is a known fact, even by those proponents of solely utilizing and relying upon meritocracy. Maybe they believe this data has no merit, pun intended. Maybe they truly believe people “not like them” are less capable and therefore less deserving. Maybe they just have faith in people and believe that all things will be fair in the end if we leave it to human discretion. Maybe something they’ve seen, heard, experienced or are experiencing makes them opposed to intentional inclusion. Or maybe they just feel like they deserve more, or like they deserve better. Don’t we all?
Leave a Reply