The Meritocracy Hypocrisy

By Maya J. Carter

Recently, Senator Tammy Duckworth (D-IL) has spoken out regarding representation of Asian Americans within President Biden’s administration. When told that the nomination and election of Vice President Kamala Harris amounts to Asian American representation – as the Vice President is of Indian descent – Senator Duckworth responded: “To be told that you have Kamala Harris, we’re very proud of her you don’t need anybody else is insulting. But multiple times I’ve heard that. And that’s not something you would say to the Black Caucus, well you have Kamala…we’re not going to put any more African Americans in the cabinet because you have Kamala, why would you say it to AAPI?” This led to an interesting discussion on the television talk show called “The View”.

While four of the hosts including EGOT winning comedian and actor Whoopi Goldberg, comedian and author Joy Behar, lawyer and journalist Sunny Hostin, journalist and news correspondent Sara Haines agreed with the intent of Senator Duckworth’s statement, author and conservative columnist Meghan McCain had some…well, Meghan-esque thoughts. McCain first discussed the political aspects of Cabinet-level appointees, describing them as the “pinnacle…the most important parts of our electoral process, and I truly believe the most qualified people should be holding, uh, you know, places that do things like national security and infrastructure. Things that literally are the meat and potatoes that make the country great.” (Sounds like MAGA, but she continues with this train of thought…) “I believe that what makes America exceptional is the fact that we’re a meritocracy. That you can be anything. That you can come from anywhere, and go and have success in any capacity. And I think the question Democrats have to reconcile with right now is whether or not race and gender are more important than qualification. So, if you have someone who is more qualified who happens to be a white, straight person who is more on paper, who is more experienced in whatever field they’re being nominated for than a minority with less experience, are we now in a place where this matters?” She went on to discuss as examples the lawsuit lodged against Harvard University race-based practices in accepting Asian applicants to their institution as compared to African American applicants (whom seemingly she deems less qualified). She then discussed that money was allocated for African American farmers in the recent stimulus package, and she felt that the opportunity was missed for including women farmers who are also in need for assistance.

Well, let us define meritocracy. Merriam-Webster defines meritocracy 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 abilities and merit.” Sounds great and totally fair, right?

Delving deep into the reality of meritocracy, we can see that there are a number of prevailing factors that burst the bubble of “fairness” that this simple definition supposes. When applied to hiring practices, implicit bias is factor that cannot be ignored. For example, two people of different ethnic or racial backgrounds can have the same curriculum vitae on paper (despite the assumption raised through the Meghan-esque assertion) yet an ethnic sounding name can be the determining factor as to who is actually hired. This has been demonstrated by large research studies, where unfortunately merit is not the deciding factor as to who is deemed “more qualified” for the position. Secondly, a number of institutions admit or hire based upon “legacy” or an applicants connections or the contact that lie within their “little black books”. In this country, who you know, or networking, can have considerably more value over merit. That may be how our dear conservative columnist is able to enjoy her seat upon a panel with highly-qualified co-hosts, no? If you think not, I urge you to review the number of times she magnifies the name of her honorable father to get her points across…as well as review the hiring and nominating practices of the previous nepotistic administration. Thirdly, while merit is of value, there is this little thing called “luck” or “help from others” that can boost chances for reward, as reminded in an article from Princeton entitled “A belief in meritocracy is not only false: it’s bad for you.” For example, there are many capable people in the military that are qualified to attain leadership positions or higher ranks, but a combination of the aforementioned qualities as well as some help from others who willingly seek out the potential in a select few can have a great impact on who is promoted and who is not. A decision to promote one over another does not equate to the assumption that the overlooked candidate does not have merit; it demonstrates that that person has been…well, overlooked frankly. Examples of this can be seen throughout American history as it applies to African American troops during times where their service was not recognized nor honored equally, and the same can be said for Asian American servicemen and women. Lastly, meritocracy can create a vicious cycle of determining who is truly meritorious versus who is not, which is noted through the said Meghan-esque soliloquy. It is a method by which one can ingratiate oneself. “I am the person who deems who has merit” on the end of the person in power, and “I am worthy and others are not” in the mindset of the one receiving the merit. Both sides deserve demerits for pomposity and being smug overall, as both begin to believe they hold sway or power over the “non-meritorious” and that their view of who is meritorious is “right”.

So, please spare us the “America is a meritocracy” greatness spiel. Someone once called Meghan McCain a “nepotism megatron”. I will refrain from name-calling, but I can see the merit in this moniker.

[si-contact-form form=’2′]