There are two issues I've identified: 1) For inclusion it is important that the people with power understand that people that currently have power are as capab

There are two issues I've identified: 1) For inclusion it is important that the people with power understand that people that currently have power are as capable as they are. So you see that with disenfranchised groups that have a history of systemic disenfranchisement based on irrelevant and sometimes non-existent biological differences needing to prove otherwise. 2) For the actual goal of companies and many organizations, meritocracy is counterproductive. So you have companies that require people with specialized skillsets, and those people think meritocracy is important. But the company is trying to cater to a broader and broader addressable market. It is more productive to have inclusion looks more like the market instead of an extreme selection of intellects. The flaw being to put intellect on a pedestal in isolation. So its just as important that people are respected to have access to the pipeline and pedigree, as it is to understand that its also not that important and that other people with different attributes should be included anyway.