Merit is clearly discriminatory, but it discriminates on the basis of ability, not on the basis of race and gender. There always have been highly capable women and non-whites. Why not hire them on the basis of their merit, not for their race and gender?
This Website Needs Your Support
Our Merit-Based Society Has Been Displaced by a Diversity-Based Society
Paul Craig Roberts
I have been watching its arrival for a number of years, and now it has arrived–the transformation of our society from merit-based to status-based. This is a major revolution.
“From status to contract” was Sir Henry Maine’s description of the rise of a merit-based society in which aristocratic privilege was eliminated and equality under the law instituted. This revolution has now been overthrown, and we as a society have moved back to status as determined by race and gender. If you are a member of an “under-represented” race or gender, you enjoy “diversity status” and preference in hiring and promotion just as aristocrats did in the hierarchy of social class.
The new status-based society is everywhere one looks. For example, the accounting firm, Price-Waterhouse, describes itself as “a culture of belonging.” “Unwavering determination and commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion” has achieved a Price-Waterhouse board that is 40% female and 40% racially/ethnically diverse. Price-Waterhouse’s aspirational goals for 2026 are a 50% increase in the firm’s black and Hispanic/Latinx workforce, a 50% increase in women, and to have 40% of its suppliers “certified diverse.”
Notice that Price-Waterhouse does not define its aspiration in terms of having the best qualified work force. Apparently, Price-Waterhouse thinks that hiring based on merit would be discriminatory and not inclusive. Why does Price-Waterhouse think that white women and non-white ethnicities are less capable than white men? If Price-Waterhouse did not think that, why does the firm base its hiring on race and gender status?
Be seeing you
MCViewPoint 