I think the concept of meritocracy is more or less a smokescreen that adds a redundant layer of morality to discussions of systemic problems. Of course, that la

I think the concept of meritocracy is more or less a smokescreen that adds a redundant layer of morality to discussions of systemic problems. Of course, that layer could be seen as inevitable considering human psychology and the need to assign moral worth to groups or individuals. For example, I don't disagree with the author's thesis that the outcomes are what matter in the end. It's just that their reasoning does not go far enough and stops at individuals instead of systems. In this sense it is clouded by the notion of meritocracy and the desire to discuss it.