5 ms·

Meritocracy is a great idea if the playing field is level. It isn't, and for hundreds of years the voices of women and people of color have been systematically

Meritocracy is a great idea if the playing field is level. It isn't, and for hundreds of years the voices of women and people of color have been systematically oppressed — but I don't need to tell you that. The deliberate inclusion of more women and POC is a conscious choice to combat this. Their works will be judged on their merits - but first they must have the opportunity to be judged, and that's something to which they do not have equal access compared to white men.

Startalker 11y ago
I hear this often enough at Uni. What bugs me about this is that the people who would have benefit from these policies, such as my ancestors, are long dead and gone. The people who oppressed them are also dead. While I can buy your argument for poor people in general, I can't understand applying a non-meritocratic basis on the basis of gender or race. A rich minority boy or white girl has access to a great deal of resources more than a poor backwoods white boy. And the sort of symbolic victory style stuff that goes on in both academic circles and in magazines just doesn't help us at all. I would have given anything for there to be resources about how to dress well in western clothing, find and eat healthy religiously-acceptable food, and understand the intricacies of western culture. But instead I got a self-congratulatory lecture on embracing our native culture. What good is that at all?
- eru 11y ago
  > But instead I got a self-congratulatory lecture on embracing our native culture. What good is that at all? Apparently it's not about actually helping people, let alone poor people or minorities. My guess is that those measures are about signalling one's factional allegiance. See also http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/09/politics-isnt-a.html http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/09/politics-isnt-a.html
- akozak 11y ago
  "the people who would have benefit from these policies [...] are long dead and gone. The people who oppressed them are also dead." In a way, public policy can still reward your ancestors and punish their oppressors, despite their death. I'd bet your ancestors would have wanted opportunities for their descendants, just as we do for our kids and grandchildren.
- dubya 11y ago
  What bugs me about this is that the people who would have benefit from these policies, such as my ancestors, are long dead and gone. The people who oppressed them are also dead. At least in the US, Brown v. Board of Education was 1954, and the Little Rock high school integration was 1957. As far as I know, all nine of the students are still alive. People who are now 75 were born at the same time as the black students who had to be escorted by US Marshalls to attend a previously all-white high school, so it's not really ancient history yet.
  - hackuser 11y ago
    > so it's not really ancient history yet It's current events; though things have improved, discrimination still is widespread.
- hackuser 11y ago
  > the people who would have benefit from these policies ... are long dead and gone I don't think the facts support that. Look at political leaders, business leaders in SV and elsewhere, the film industry, and, I expect, the voices on HN, both in the articles and discussions; they are overwhelmingly white males. Those are the stories we hear and the perspectives we unconciously accept. If we don't make an effort at diversity, then history shows that this non-meritocratic, race and gender-based system will persist.
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > What bugs me about this is that the people who would have benefit from these policies, such as my ancestors, are long dead and gone. The people who directly benefited (or suffered) from de jure discrimination by race in the US aren't even dead and gone -- there are people alive today that were adults when those policies existed -- much less the people that indirectly benefited by way of, e.g., having an advantage (resp., disadvantage) in opportunity because their parents wealth/education/etc. was directly influenced by those policies.
  - eru 11y ago
    Compare http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/05/26/compound-interest-is-the-least-powerful-force-in-the-universe/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/05/26/compound-interest-is-th...
gravypod 11y ago
Let us do a quick thought experiment. You are tasked with hiring a few people to design a bridge that you will build. Say that two people design a bridge. One was a ['privileged' group] and the other was an ['unprivileged' group]. The ['unprivileged' group] designer's bridge is proven to be less stable than the other design. What bridge do you pick to build? This is fundamentally the same idea. Written works and ideas are what we use as a basis to solve problems around us. If you are blocking yourself from the consumption of good works on the misguided crusade to 'help under represented' people then you are not only harming yourself, you are harming everyone who has to deal with the fallout of your actions. I am certain that some people I have made the acquaintance of would choose the ['unprivileged' group] bridge, even though it could end up harming others.
- Steko 11y ago
  The problem with your analogy is the assumption of that [unprivliged group]'s bridge was worse. In fact the problem is that [privleged group] was getting shitty bridges built for decades while good bridges from [unpriveleged group] were being ignored.
  - gravypod 11y ago
    I agree with part of your statement. The point of this scenario is that it stipulates a flaw in the initial logic. I can guarantee that given N number of groups, the chances of the best bridge being build by group 1...N are 100%/N. I don't however think that good ideas have been 'ignored'. Even if so, the way the initial argument was presented seems to imply that the bridges cannot stand on it's own and needs others to help it. If I was a [unprivileged group] and a writer, bridge builder, or a general do-er I would be offended by that insinuation. It implies that [unprivileged group] people cannot succeed on their own ideas. The reality is, we live in a market of ideas and the best ones are usually chosen. If you think that is not the case, then I would like you to name at least 2 fields without a prominent [unprivileged group] person with leading theories and ideas. The thing is you cannot. For instance, my love of literature not only centered around Poe but also Douglass, my life is filled with carbon-filament light-bulbs, and some of my long distance relatives had their lives saved by soy-based fire prevention systems in the navy during WWII.
TrevorJ 11y ago
I do understand this, and to some extent it can be a valid approach. However, I think that the primary focus should be on fixing the systemic problem you mention. Anything else is just a bandaid at best, and at worst runs the risk of being insulting because it implies that group x or y's work isn't good enough to compete on it's own.
- Steko 11y ago
  > I think that the primary focus should be on fixing the systemic problem you mention. So what's your plan to fix it? Part of the plan other people have come up with involves taking overt positive steps to directly counteract the discrimination endemic to the system.
  - TrevorJ 11y ago
    I fully admit that it's a difficult problem and I don't pretend to have the answers. It's difficult to articulate clearly, but I think my general thought is that it would be good if we could collectively agree that a world where race or gender didn't have to come into consideration is something to aim for. Maybe that's idealistic, I don't know. I just feel that a system which explicitly takes race or gender into consideration can only go so far towards ameliorating discrimination, and at some point it can begin to perpetuating the very thing it seeks to change.
- hackuser 11y ago
  > it implies that group x or y's work isn't good enough to compete on it's own. I think this is a common misunderstanding. It assumes that the judgment to hire is on merit. The assumption behind affirmative action is different; it's that the judgment has been based on race and gender, and on the network of those in power (which, due to prior discrimination, is of one race and gender). I think that is much more realistic than the meritocratic model: * If there wasn't discrimination, why would 33% of the population (white males) still hold the great majority of power, wealth and opportunity. Certainly we know discrimination has been widespread and still is in many places. * We all know that 'who you know' and networking is far more important than 'what you know' when it comes to getting jobs, business deals, getting into college (consider children alumni and big donors), etc. The current network, due to historical and current discrimination, is mostly white males. On that basis, choosing the best minority options improves quality. For a simple but imperfect example, think of the integration of baseball: Before 1947, black and Latino players weren't allowed to play in the Major Leagues.[1] At that point, if you hired the best excluded players based simply on the fact that they were excluded, would you improve your team? Certainly; there were Hall of Fame level players that were excluded, and the players they would replace, the ones you would fire, would be the guys at the bottom of your roster who would have been minor-leaguers if not for the discrimination. [1] And after 1947, it took 20 years or more before the opportunity to play was equal. At the end of 1947 only 2 non-white players played. It took until 1959 for the last two teams to integrate. From what I've read, if you were black and hit like an all-star then you could find a job. If you were an average hitter, they would take the white guy.

Startalker 11y ago

I hear this often enough at Uni. What bugs me about this is that the people who would have benefit from these policies, such as my ancestors, are long dead and gone. The people who oppressed them are also dead. While I can buy your argument for poor people in general, I can't understand applying a non-meritocratic basis on the basis of gender or race. A rich minority boy or white girl has access to a great deal of resources more than a poor backwoods white boy. And the sort of symbolic victory style stuff that goes on in both academic circles and in magazines just doesn't help us at all. I would have given anything for there to be resources about how to dress well in western clothing, find and eat healthy religiously-acceptable food, and understand the intricacies of western culture. But instead I got a self-congratulatory lecture on embracing our native culture. What good is that at all?

eru 11y ago
> But instead I got a self-congratulatory lecture on embracing our native culture. What good is that at all? Apparently it's not about actually helping people, let alone poor people or minorities. My guess is that those measures are about signalling one's factional allegiance. See also http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/09/politics-isnt-a.html http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/09/politics-isnt-a.html
akozak 11y ago
"the people who would have benefit from these policies [...] are long dead and gone. The people who oppressed them are also dead." In a way, public policy can still reward your ancestors and punish their oppressors, despite their death. I'd bet your ancestors would have wanted opportunities for their descendants, just as we do for our kids and grandchildren.
dubya 11y ago
What bugs me about this is that the people who would have benefit from these policies, such as my ancestors, are long dead and gone. The people who oppressed them are also dead. At least in the US, Brown v. Board of Education was 1954, and the Little Rock high school integration was 1957. As far as I know, all nine of the students are still alive. People who are now 75 were born at the same time as the black students who had to be escorted by US Marshalls to attend a previously all-white high school, so it's not really ancient history yet.
- hackuser 11y ago
  > so it's not really ancient history yet It's current events; though things have improved, discrimination still is widespread.
hackuser 11y ago
> the people who would have benefit from these policies ... are long dead and gone I don't think the facts support that. Look at political leaders, business leaders in SV and elsewhere, the film industry, and, I expect, the voices on HN, both in the articles and discussions; they are overwhelmingly white males. Those are the stories we hear and the perspectives we unconciously accept. If we don't make an effort at diversity, then history shows that this non-meritocratic, race and gender-based system will persist.
dragonwriter 11y ago
> What bugs me about this is that the people who would have benefit from these policies, such as my ancestors, are long dead and gone. The people who directly benefited (or suffered) from de jure discrimination by race in the US aren't even dead and gone -- there are people alive today that were adults when those policies existed -- much less the people that indirectly benefited by way of, e.g., having an advantage (resp., disadvantage) in opportunity because their parents wealth/education/etc. was directly influenced by those policies.
- eru 11y ago
  Compare http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/05/26/compound-interest-is-the-least-powerful-force-in-the-universe/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/05/26/compound-interest-is-th...

gravypod 11y ago

Let us do a quick thought experiment. You are tasked with hiring a few people to design a bridge that you will build. Say that two people design a bridge. One was a ['privileged' group] and the other was an ['unprivileged' group]. The ['unprivileged' group] designer's bridge is proven to be less stable than the other design. What bridge do you pick to build? This is fundamentally the same idea. Written works and ideas are what we use as a basis to solve problems around us. If you are blocking yourself from the consumption of good works on the misguided crusade to 'help under represented' people then you are not only harming yourself, you are harming everyone who has to deal with the fallout of your actions. I am certain that some people I have made the acquaintance of would choose the ['unprivileged' group] bridge, even though it could end up harming others.

Steko 11y ago
The problem with your analogy is the assumption of that [unprivliged group]'s bridge was worse. In fact the problem is that [privleged group] was getting shitty bridges built for decades while good bridges from [unpriveleged group] were being ignored.
- gravypod 11y ago
  I agree with part of your statement. The point of this scenario is that it stipulates a flaw in the initial logic. I can guarantee that given N number of groups, the chances of the best bridge being build by group 1...N are 100%/N. I don't however think that good ideas have been 'ignored'. Even if so, the way the initial argument was presented seems to imply that the bridges cannot stand on it's own and needs others to help it. If I was a [unprivileged group] and a writer, bridge builder, or a general do-er I would be offended by that insinuation. It implies that [unprivileged group] people cannot succeed on their own ideas. The reality is, we live in a market of ideas and the best ones are usually chosen. If you think that is not the case, then I would like you to name at least 2 fields without a prominent [unprivileged group] person with leading theories and ideas. The thing is you cannot. For instance, my love of literature not only centered around Poe but also Douglass, my life is filled with carbon-filament light-bulbs, and some of my long distance relatives had their lives saved by soy-based fire prevention systems in the navy during WWII.

TrevorJ 11y ago

I do understand this, and to some extent it can be a valid approach. However, I think that the primary focus should be on fixing the systemic problem you mention. Anything else is just a bandaid at best, and at worst runs the risk of being insulting because it implies that group x or y's work isn't good enough to compete on it's own.

Steko 11y ago
> I think that the primary focus should be on fixing the systemic problem you mention. So what's your plan to fix it? Part of the plan other people have come up with involves taking overt positive steps to directly counteract the discrimination endemic to the system.
- TrevorJ 11y ago
  I fully admit that it's a difficult problem and I don't pretend to have the answers. It's difficult to articulate clearly, but I think my general thought is that it would be good if we could collectively agree that a world where race or gender didn't have to come into consideration is something to aim for. Maybe that's idealistic, I don't know. I just feel that a system which explicitly takes race or gender into consideration can only go so far towards ameliorating discrimination, and at some point it can begin to perpetuating the very thing it seeks to change.
hackuser 11y ago
> it implies that group x or y's work isn't good enough to compete on it's own. I think this is a common misunderstanding. It assumes that the judgment to hire is on merit. The assumption behind affirmative action is different; it's that the judgment has been based on race and gender, and on the network of those in power (which, due to prior discrimination, is of one race and gender). I think that is much more realistic than the meritocratic model: * If there wasn't discrimination, why would 33% of the population (white males) still hold the great majority of power, wealth and opportunity. Certainly we know discrimination has been widespread and still is in many places. * We all know that 'who you know' and networking is far more important than 'what you know' when it comes to getting jobs, business deals, getting into college (consider children alumni and big donors), etc. The current network, due to historical and current discrimination, is mostly white males. On that basis, choosing the best minority options improves quality. For a simple but imperfect example, think of the integration of baseball: Before 1947, black and Latino players weren't allowed to play in the Major Leagues.[1] At that point, if you hired the best excluded players based simply on the fact that they were excluded, would you improve your team? Certainly; there were Hall of Fame level players that were excluded, and the players they would replace, the ones you would fire, would be the guys at the bottom of your roster who would have been minor-leaguers if not for the discrimination. [1] And after 1947, it took 20 years or more before the opportunity to play was equal. At the end of 1947 only 2 non-white players played. It took until 1959 for the last two teams to integrate. From what I've read, if you were black and hit like an all-star then you could find a job. If you were an average hitter, they would take the white guy.