[dataflow]

> Do you think this remains true with DIE and affirmative action being implemented in all major employers, universities and institutions?

Meritocracy is about how government employees (or those who aren't legally "employees" per se, but who still have the political power) are chosen, not about how students or private employees are chosen. (c.f. how the existence of religious schools doesn't imply the country is a theocracy, the existence of CEOs doesn't imply the country is an autocracy, etc.)

[anon291]

Meritocracy actually is about how students or private employees are chosen, since the word is typically used to apply to the entire society of the USA, not just its government.

So yeah, if all schools were suddenly uber-Catholic and dissuaded non-Catholics for example, then that would mean the society has become less meritocratic. Or if companies had racial preferences in hiring instead of hiring based on merit and achievement, and this was widespread, then the US could not be said to be a meritocracy.

This is not a legal or governmental discussion, this is about sociology, anthropology, and culture.

[asabjorn]

Good points. Also, constitutional constraints apply to public schools and universities so they are not supposed to push a state religion such as marxist theology. It is also illegal to fire someone or discriminate against them for not adopting a faith.

Right now the job is to make more aware that marxism and by proxy wokism doesn't just look like a religion, it is a religion and has a clear theology, so constitutional protections against state religions apply and this should stop the woke abuse of political power for religious aims.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqj-MKG9SnU&t=1s

Likewise constitutional protections apply against enforcement of the marxist faith using DIE.

[anon291]

Right. Constitutional protections are the bare minimum for government to follow. There exist configurations of current society with all constitutional protections in place that still leave a lot to be desired. Unfortunately, modern political discourse is obsessed with government and less obsessed with polities, which is really sad, because government is actually a small part of society.

[asabjorn]

Absolutely. Marxism is an odd cult that slipped past a lot of protections that should have applied to it.

Persons from any faith that worships the state becoming a manifestation of its perfect idol and does the work (praxis) to make it so, should not be allowed any role in it as they would not adhere to the separation of church&state.

[asabjorn]

DIE is also implemented all over the government, and public schools and universities also apply it. Are you saying you are concerned about this affecting meritocracy, but not in private schools and companies?

Your definition of meritocracy to be related only to those that have political power is not a universal definition. Merriam Webster defines it as "a system, organization, or society in which people are chosen and moved into positions of success, power, and influence on the basis of their demonstrated".

But let's go with just political power. Are you saying that getting a high-status private education, eg. harvard or yale, or a high power private company role has no influence on you wielding political power?

[dataflow]

> Are you saying you are concerned about

No, I haven't said anything about my concerns nor did I intend to.

> DIE is also implemented all over the government

That would make for a better argument with some examples, instead of pointing to universities and private institutions etc.

> Are you saying that getting a high-status private education, eg. harvard or yale, or a high power private company role has no influence on you wielding political power?

No. But "influence > 0" is not the correct criterion.

[asabjorn]

I think I am a bit confused then. We were discussing meritocracy. Are you claiming affirmative action or DEI has no effect on meritocracy? Or that meritocracy in your opinion shouldn't be a consideration?

> That would make for a better argument with some examples, instead of pointing to universities and private institutions etc.

Why do you think public universities and schools are not government? They are under political founding, oversight, funding, and control so that doesn't make sense to me.

>No. But "influence > 0" is not the correct criterion.

What is the correct criterion in your opinion?

[dataflow]

> Are you saying that you think DIE is justified in government, universities and private institutions? Trying to understand your position here

Sorry, as I mentioned, it's not my intention to state my position on DIE here.

> Why do you think public universities and schools are not government? They are under political founding, oversight, funding, and control so that doesn't make sense to me.

You're binarizing things that aren't binary. It depends a lot on what you're talking about. e.g., K-12 and graduate school are not the same in this regard, and different universities/states are different. Public universities have quite a bit of independence from the government and politics; sometimes this is even literally written in the state constitutions. Moreover, institutions have lots of different funding sources. You can't just point at "the government is funding this therefore this is the government". The actual influence the government exerts on an entity compared to all the other influences on that entity is a huge factor here.

> What is the correct criterion in your opinion?

The influence has to be "large", for some sensible definition of large. That definition should probably compare the influence with other sources of influence somehow.

And if you're making a sweeping statement about the whole country, the criterion should probably include something that applies to a large chunk of the relevant institutions in the country.

[asabjorn]

> You can't just point at "the government is funding this therefore this is the government". The actual influence the government exerts on an entity compared to all the other influences on that entity is a huge factor here.

Public universities and K-12 are actually owned by state governments, and they are subject to FOIA and constitutional constraints like all government institutions. For instance, they are not supposed to push a state religion.

> The influence has to be "large", for some sensible definition of large. That definition should probably compare the influence with other sources of influence somehow.

So are you arguing that meritocratic considerations should be secondary to other considerations decided with political power?