Why exactly do people contend that meritocracy somehow clashes with diversity? The implications being made by suggesting the two be mutually exclusive are frightening.
1. There exist some quality “merit” with a random uniform distribution across the population.
2. Some systems used to measure merit are biased for and against different subgroups of the population.
3. People obtain power and wealth based these biased measurements.
4. Subgroups with more power and wealth expend resources optimizing their performance on the tests, further biasing the results.
5. The winners in this system label it a “meritocracy”.
This story rings true to me. That doesn’t necessarily mean merit-based systems are all bad. They can still provide lots of opportunity to the poor who have enough aptitude they can still beat the test despite the bias. Other systems may have worse problems.
In practice, organizations like Mozilla still have a competitive merit-based hiring process even if they say they oppose meritocracy. They might attempt to apply a correction to unbias the merit measurement. Getting rid of the trappings of meritocracy might make it a more welcoming place to work for everyone and raise the total merit (even if there’s no way to measure it).
Why don't you come out and say what you really mean? djajshgsjja is attempting to justify a handicap against the successful subgroups. But what amount of handicap should there be? In what measure should the handicap apply? How can you apply any sort of handicap without a massive bureaucratic intervention, with swaths of each organisation dedicated to applying handicaps? Ah, but the bureaucratic intervention is the linchpin. We arrive at the diversity and equity offices in Universities across North America. We arrive at the Commitment to Diversity and Inclusion by Law Society of Ontario that requires every law firm of 10 or greater to complete an annual report about how they are advancing the goals of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion. Diversity, equity, and inclusion are parts of an ideology based on absolutely no science or literature, and ignores the deadly catastrophes of the 20th century whose millions of dead were preceded by cutting off the successful subgroups at the knees.
It is easier to see the issue when thinking what "meritocracy" means as a process as opposed to a state of being. The word "meritocracy" has no procedurality to it, it solely signals values without providing an effective method of achieving it. Signalling values can in fact hurt achieving those values by poisoning discussions about them. Everyone has their own idea of what "meritocracy" means, so it allows people to pretend that they're all on the same page even if they're not. It also invites people to presume that the organization is already a meritocracy and be less self-critical about maintaining that state.
"The word "meritocracy" has no procedurality to it, it solely signals values without providing an effective method of achieving it."
So? Nor do democracy, aristocracy or kakocracy. However they are all useful terms for expressing where the power lies. Hackers are happy to let anyone contribute to the solution, but "f--- your feelings, we've got a job to do here" applies too.
They clash. You either have a meritocracy or diversity quotas; you either choose people because they’re competent or because they are of a certain sex/race.
The people pushing this radical view on diversity and equality tend to paint all people they see as marginalized as unable to compete on a level playing field.
This has always bothered me. Interviews for technology related roles are almost always an assessment of innate cognitive ability, something that has no real correlation with race or gender. The idea that certain groups might be disadvantaged here and require help is especially insulting.
1. There exist some quality “merit” with a random uniform distribution across the population.
2. Some systems used to measure merit are biased for and against different subgroups of the population.
3. People obtain power and wealth based these biased measurements.
4. Subgroups with more power and wealth expend resources optimizing their performance on the tests, further biasing the results.
5. The winners in this system label it a “meritocracy”.
This story rings true to me. That doesn’t necessarily mean merit-based systems are all bad. They can still provide lots of opportunity to the poor who have enough aptitude they can still beat the test despite the bias. Other systems may have worse problems.
In practice, organizations like Mozilla still have a competitive merit-based hiring process even if they say they oppose meritocracy. They might attempt to apply a correction to unbias the merit measurement. Getting rid of the trappings of meritocracy might make it a more welcoming place to work for everyone and raise the total merit (even if there’s no way to measure it).