4 ms·
This “pure meritocracy” argument simply boils down to the fact that it’s not possible to build a system that perfectly measures how prospective candidates will
by AmericanChopper 3y ago
This “pure meritocracy” argument simply boils down to the fact that it’s not possible to build a system that perfectly measures how prospective candidates will perform in the future. Really, all businesses and institutions should be free to innovate their own methodologies for doing that, and live with whatever consequences they produce, with the governments role being to regulate the limits of permissible discrimination. Race has been a class legally protected from discrimination for quite some time now, and it’s honestly pretty sad that it’s taken this long to get a ruling on this open and unapologetic racial discrimination.
- 307sar 3y ago[flagged]
- AmericanChopper 3y agoWell I don’t think that’s true. You should be allowed to racially discriminate about who’s allowed to come into your home. Employers and universities should not be allowed to racially discriminate about who they employ/admit. My point is simply that the “perfect meritocracy doesn’t exist” argument is pointless. Screening candidates is a problem for businesses to solve, and the only metric they should be incentivised to optimise for is the outcomes produced for the institution/business.
- 307sar 3y ago[flagged]