The whole premise was based on the assumption that meritocracy is bad - my point is that this is a flawed assumption. The proposed solutions were the government

The whole premise was based on the assumption that meritocracy is bad - my point is that this is a flawed assumption. The proposed solutions were the government could step in and "discourage hiring practices that arbitrarily and counterproductively weed out the less-well-IQ’ed." This is counter to science - it has been shown that intelligence is one of the best predictors of the quality of an employee. Why should the government subsidize stupid people, or interfere in companies hiring the best qualified employees anymore than it already does? The reality is smarter people are on average better employees, which is not at all surprising. This article is using politically correct logic, as opposed to actually correct logic. A fundamental assumption of the article is that every person is of equal worth. Anyone who objects to this idea is labelled as racist or sexist or whatever-ist. But it is objectively just not true that people are all the same. A murderer is not equal to a doctor. Most people would choose to save a drowning doctor rather than a drowning murderer if forced to pick one. Similarly, if I a rational person had to choose between saving a drowning doctor who is an idiot or saving a drowning doctor who is a geniue, the rational person would save the smarter doctor.