On the scale of nepotism<->meritocracy, the US is probably much closer to meritocracy than most human societies have been.
Are there examples of societies who have done meritocracy better, from which we can take ideas to improve our own system?
Are there examples of societies who have done meritocracy better, from which we can take ideas to improve our own system?
Hiring people of all backgrounds that agree with a forced marxist outcome (diversity), firing people dissenting to Marxist forced outcome or shutting them up (inclusion), and a forced marxist outcome (equity) never lead to meritocracy in other places. Why would it here?
Likewise, affirmative action in hiring and research grants favor a less productive woman or a less competent person with the right identity category. Affirmative action categories are from the 60s when the US had a very different demographic, and whom held high status office jobs looked very different.
Of all the people, I would expect technologists to have a very straight forward, rational and objectivist perspective, but I am realizing that it might not be the case.
Every wondered how oil, coal and weapons companies could have a high ESG score? It's because it's a scam to benefit the cartels controlling the scores.
In practice ESG stands for sustainability of the political regime (Environmental), compliance with marxist values and social justice programs (Social) and compliance with the desired principles of the ruling government (Government). DIE is part of the S and G.
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.)
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?
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.
> 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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
A metric of diversity being applied to selection really doesn't mean it's the sole criterion. The effect isn't negligible, but neither is it fully-like wannabe egalitarian marxist systems where your parent's job or political affiliations forever determined your future status without negotiation.
There's definitely a scale between a meritocratic and egalitarian society.
The problem is that although there is for instance merit to helping the poor, that is in direct conflict with DIE that will choose Colin Powell’s son over a multi-generation poor white son of a black father any day.
Likewise, affirmative action will choose to give Hillary Clinton’s daughter research funding over an Asian male from a poor railroad worker family.
If one really cared about class or generational injustice, then the poor white male and Asian male in the examples above would have not been systematically discriminated against using DIE&affirmative action