The example was a pretty extreme one (deliberately, I suspect). In that case, where group "A" outnumbered group "B" substantially in the candidate pool, and yet

The example was a pretty extreme one (deliberately, I suspect). In that case, where group "A" outnumbered group "B" substantially in the candidate pool, and yet ALL the people hired were from group "B", it would be perfectly reasonable to suspect bias or various other factors than pure merit, unless a perfectly objective and fair process were used. Obviously few real world examples are that clear cut. If the "anti-meritocracy" people simply want people and organizations to be less arrogant about believing they have a perfect selection process, I think that's a good thing. The biggest issue I have with the "anti-meritocracy" teams is this: the language that many people use seems calibrated to shame people for even using the word, or thinking of meritocracy as a ideal or target to aim for. Anyone who's ever had to hire people for a startup is unlikely to feel terribly arrogant about their process, though - in my experience, people try to make it as systematic as possible and then improvise within that. Certainly, any adjustment to process that makes it less susceptible to prejudice or bigotry is a good step. Obviously, "merit" is a function of a person's innate ability, education, effectiveness and fit in a particular role, and a million other factors. It's not an exact science. But it's a good thing for an organization to decide, at minimum, what does "merit" look like for this particular role or hire? (And, more broadly, what traits of "merit" are shared across the whole organization?) The dictionary definition seems benign enough: "A system in which advancement is based on individual ability or achievement". I'm sure people would agree this is better this than racism, sexism, or straight up politics.