"The Decline of Merit as a Measurement of Value"

 

Sydney M. Williams

www.swtotd.blogspot.com

 

Thought of the Day

“The Decline of Merit as a Measurement of Value”

June 10, 2022

 

“We know all men are not created equal in the sense some people would have us believe – 

some people are smarter than others, some people have more opportunity because they’re

born with it…some people are born gifted beyond the normal scope of most men.”

                                                                                                                                To Kill a Mockingbird, 1960

                                                                                                                                Harper Lee (1926-2016)

 

Ms. Harper wrote in a less politically correct age. The word ‘men’ does not refer to gender but to mankind. In this essay, I use the word as she did.

 

In the first half of the 20^th Century (and earlier), through the early 1950s, wealth and social class were more important determinants than merit, in terms of college acceptance, employment gained, and wealth accumulated. White, Anglo-Saxon Protestant men were favored. Appropriately, attitudes changed in the post-War years, with merit playing a bigger role. Colleges and employers looked more at innate ability, personal drive, and willingness to work hard rather than family connections or schools attended. Race, gender and religious prejudices still applied, but that also began to change in the 1960s and ‘70s, with civil and women’s rights legislation, color-blind applications, and with many single-sex colleges going co-ed. Now we appear to have reverted to earlier times when, once again, identity – race, gender, ethnicity, and even sexual orientation – is valued above merit. 

 

For colleges and universities, the use of merit – with SATs and ACTs as the standard measurements for educational potential – was an attempt to seek out the most qualified students, regardless of sex, race, or from whence they came. It is not a perfect system (no system is), but it has, at least, less bias than subjective measures. However, those exams now disproportionately favor Asians, so are deemed unfair, as they fail woke standards of diversity, inclusion and equity, standards which, by the way, exclude those with conservative political opinions and unsanctified cultural preferences.

 

Should merit alone be the standard for admitting a new student or hiring a new employee? Of course not. There are other valued traits: character, moral and common sense, integrity, diligence, loyalty. But, while many of those traits can be perceived through a subjective lens, the determination of merit is largely objective. It was almost sixty years ago that Martin Luther King delivered his “I Have a Dream” speech on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, where he spoke of a time when his four little children “will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” Six decades later, woke progressives insist that the color of one’s skin does matter. The implication being that blacks cannot compete without assistance from the state. It is false and demeaning. 

 

The world is not equitable, as Harper Lee implied in the rubric above and as Voltaire’s Dr. Pangloss discovered; no matter how hard one searches perfection remains elusive. Nevertheless, we should always work at bettering our society, but we should do so while taking pride in our country and by building people up, not belittling them. How much more powerful would President Biden’s choice for the Supreme Court have reverberated throughout the land if he had said he would nominate the most qualified individual and then nominated Ketanji Brown Jackson, instead of first saying he would nominate a black woman? No matter her brilliance, she will be forever stigmatized as being selected – not for her legal expertise or her personal bona fides, but because she was a black woman.

 

The concept of meritocracy has come under attack in recent times. In a new book The Meritocracy Trap, Yale Law School professor Daniel Markovits, writes that meritocracy is simply “a pretense, constructed to rationalize an unjust distribution advantage.” Mac Margolis, a columnist for The Washington Post, suggests that merit has replaced the old system of inherited privilege…that it is, at least partly like the old system, class-based. Parents with money, education and connections cultivate in their children the habits that bring meritocratic rewards. While there is some truth to what they write, is a return to racism – even when formatted differently – the answer? Merit should be encouraged, not belittled. Regardless of wealth or social station, we should all strive to improve ourselves. As a nation, we should strive for unity, not division. Sadly, today there are legions who believe that identity politics is more important than merit when admitting a student to an elite college or welcoming an applicant to a high-profile job. The woke are comfortable being racist (though they will never admit it), so long as ends justify means. 

 

It was merit that lifted man to the heights he has achieved, in terms of industry, scientific developments, and living standards. It was merit that formed our unique government in 1776. It was merit that has given us works of art, literature, music, and poetry. Man is not the “poor bare, forked animal” of King Lear’s imagination. Man is a human being, capable of thought and reason. He seeks opportunities because of the talents he possesses, so long as he has the freedom to express them and the legal framework to protect what he has produced. It was merit, not family connections, or racial or gender preferences, that saw – according to a 2018 Brookings Institute study – 44% of the Fortune 500 companies being founded or run by immigrants.

 

Merit, as I wrote earlier, should not be the sole basis for making judgments, but its importance should not be minimized. We want and need the best and the brightest to pursue and realize their dreams. Our future well-being depends on it.

"What Ails Us?"

Sydney M. Williams

www.swtotd.blogspot.com

Thought of the Day

“What Ails Us?”

February 24, 2020

“When you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect.”

                                                                                                            Mark Twain (1835-1910)

                                                                                                            Mark Twain’s Notebook, 1935

                                                                                                            Editor, Albert Bigelow Paine

In the summer of 1961, after my sophomore year in college, I worked in the smelter of Canada’s Falconbridge Nickel Mines just outside of Sudbury, Ontario. There were a number of Canadian students – all men – working in the mine that summer. On weekends, we would head into Sudbury to have a few beers and otherwise relax. One evening, fortified with libations, we attended a student union debate. The subject: “Resolved: I Would Rather be Dead than Red,” a common debate topic at the time. At the debates’ conclusion, members of the audience were asked if they would like to come up and speak, first for the affirmative and later for the negative. Having enjoyed debate in school and with vocal cords loosened with a couple of Molson Ales, I approached the dais and gave my reasons in the two minutes of allotted time. A few other students did as well. Then the moderator asked who would speak for the negative. At first no one rose, so again I approached the dais, this time to applause, to offer my opposing views.

The idea of debating two sides of an issue was always good training. Aristotle is alleged to have said that “it is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.” I would go further and claim that if one does not understand an opponent’s position, then there is no possibility of reaching compromise. We have entered a twilight zone where biases are so extreme that we no longer communicate but talk over one another. Institutions, like family, church (or, at least, traditional Christian churches) and community organizations are in decline. They have been replaced by groups like #BlackLivesMatter, #MeToo, #Resistance, #MAGA and social media, which give participants a chance to gather on like-minded platforms but offer little opportunity to witness or appreciate opposing views.

Unlike Swedes, French, Chinese or Japanese, we are Americans by choice, a choice that was either ours or that of our forefathers. While a typical Swede or Chinese can be imagined, a typical American cannot. We are too diverse. While our land was inhabited by immigrants in the early 17^th Century, our nation was formed in 1789, with men wise in the knowledge of laws and with an understanding of the governments of other nations, past and present – their strengths and their weaknesses. Like Shakespeare’s King Lear, the Founders knew that “…unaccommodated [uncivilized] man is no more but a bare, forked animal…,” metaphorically suggesting he was anarchical, with the capacity for good and evil. They also knew, through a study of history, that governments without restrictions become instruments of tyranny. So, they devised a government in which laws, not men, set boundaries, and one in which three, counter-forcing branches balance one another, so that no individual or group would wield power indiscriminately.

Our Founders were not perfect by today’s standards, but measured against those of 250 years ago, they were extraordinary, enlightened men. From the start, we were a polyglot nation. In those far away days, according to Joshua Kendall’s biography of Noah Webster, The Forgotten Founding Father (and my four-greats grandfather), more than fifty languages and dialects were spoken in Pennsylvania alone. Overtime, the country became – and is still becoming – a melting pot. The mixing of religions, ethnicities and races. Not too many years ago, Germantown, Little Italy and Chinatown were culturally distinct neighborhoods in New York City, not marketing venues as they are today. Europe, with its long history of nativist populations, has had a far more difficult time integrating immigrants, as has been seen in violent attacks in France, Sweden, Germany and Britain. Yet the consequence of progressives today, with their emphasis on identity politics and victimization, is to divide a people struggling to unite, to create a salad bowl, a place where the radishes, carrots, peppers and tomatoes have their distinct places. Their reason for doing so is political, as it is easier to tailor messages to distinct groups – ones of race, religion and heritage, and others of gender and sexual preference, but not ones of ideas based on a study of history and civics. What has been lost is a sense of what America means, of a people of disparate opinions, backgrounds, aspirations and abilities who formed (and are still forming) a nation unlike any other on Earth.

As well, the composition of our political parties has changed. It was in 1860 that the first presidential election pitted a Democrat against a Republican. The 2020 election will the 40^th such election where those two main parties represent the myriad views of millions of voters.  Today’s population is eleven times bigger than it was in 1860. A microcosm of the change that has taken place in political parties over the past sixty years could be seen in Connecticut’s 2018 gubernatorial election. The Democrat Ned Lamont is the great grandson of J.P Morgan’s partner Thomas W. Lamont. He grew up in Laurel Hollow, Long Island and attended Phillips Exeter and Harvard. His father worked in the Nixon Administration. The Republican Bob Stefanowski grew up in a working-class family in North Haven, CT. His father was a scoreboard assistant at the Yale Bowl. He is a graduate of North Haven High School and Fairfield University. Sixty years ago, Lamont would have been the Republican and Stefanowski the Democrat.

Privileged is a word tossed around carelessly today. Those of us fortunate to live in the United States are all privileged. We live in a nation without aristocracies, where backgrounds account for less than talent and aspiration. We live in a nation of laws that protect private property. We have abundant resources and no enemies on our borders. We come from all corners of the globe. According to the Census Bureau, over three hundred and fifty languages are spoken in this country. Success is a function of desire, ability and a willingness to work hard. Yet, all of us do not accept the opportunities our privileges permit.

Contradictions abound in today’s political environment. Extreme right-wing Republicans push nativist policies, incompatible with our multicultural country. Progressive Democrats, push dependency on government, to reassure their re-elections. Dependency is necessary, when individuals cannot care for themselves, but in other cases dependency deprives the capable and aspirant from realizing their hopes and dreams. What makes this ironic is that technology, particularly the internet, has boosted opportunities for innovative entrepreneurs. What Joseph Schumpeter described as “creative destruction” has hit our economy, destroying old industries – some known for lifetime employment – but creating new ones, which offer risk and opportunity. The taxi industry is a good example. Collusion between politicians and medallion owners limited competition in cities like New York. When Uber and Lyft entered the market, they felt the wrath of government, even as consumers benefitted. Creative destruction is not a new phenomenon. It is the way economies and societies advance. Booth Tarkington’s Pulitzer prize winning novel The Magnificent Ambersons – subsequently made into a movie directed by Orson Welles – described the horse-carriage businesses bankrupted by the new automobile industry. Without adapting, businesses die. Retail, communication, entertainment industries and others are undergoing “destructive” change, with positive consequences for consumers and opportunities for risk takers. In many sexual abuse cases, presumption of innocence has too often become assumption of guilt. News programs have given up a search for truth and become advocates for policy preferences. Families have been subordinated to “villages,” in terms of raising a child, yet where else than from a family does a child receive unconditional love?

Ironies abound. There is irony, as Victor Davis Hanson recently noted in National Review, in universities that have achieved record endowments, while their students are burdened with record levels of debt. What allowed this to happen? If colleges and universities, not just U.S. taxpayers, had assumed some of the financial risk of student loan default, would tuition prices have risen as rapidly as they did? Colleges and universities took no risk. They knew they would be paid, so lifted prices and competed on the basis of physical plant and administrative help in non-educational endeavors. Attitudes toward government have changed. The call of duty, so famously echoed by John F. Kennedy, has been replaced by a demand for entitlements. Vulnerable children from troubled and impoverished families are no longer called “at risk.” They are now “at promise.” Is there not a difference between a child at risk, and a child who, given his or her untapped talent, has a promising future? In mass shootings, we blame the weapon but place no responsibility or accountability on he who pulled the trigger. We have entered an Orwellian world where universities, places that light the flame of curiosity, have banned books considered offensive to a few. That such actions are similar to those taken by tyrants in despotic states seem to be of no relevance to today’s college administrators.

Why are we in this place? We are wealthy. GDP is at record levels and unemployment at record lows. We are free, privileged to live in a democracy. We are engaged in no major wars. Despite climate-scaremongers, our carbon emissions are lower than they were ten years ago, and our rivers, lakes and beaches are cleaner than ever before. Can we do more, and should we not help developing nations? Of course, but celebrate what has been done. Blacks and Hispanics are repeatedly told that the economy and politics are not working for them, that they are victims of white oppression. Yet their unemployment is at record low levels and their real wages have begun to rise for the first time in years. President Trump is accused of being crude (which he is), yet his accusers talk of assassination without condemnation or even comment. He is accused of authoritarian tendencies, yet he has reduced regulations. Which President weaponized the IRS in 2013 to go after conservative organizations? And which political party colluded with the Justice Department and the CIA to publish false information on Mr. Trump in 2016 and 2017, first the candidate and later the nominee? Why has hatred for Mr. Trump so infested mainstream media and members of the Washington elite, that reason is no longer an arrow in their quivers? Cannot bureaucrats in Washington and elites in Hollywood, the media and in cities like New York, San Francisco, Boston and Austin understand that is a lack of consideration of some of these facts and a failure to respond to unanswered questions that led to the election three and a half years ago of Donald Trump, and which will likely lead to his re-election this November?

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn once wrote: “It’s a universal law – intolerance is the first sign of an inadequate education. An ill-educated person behaves with arrogant impertinence, whereas truly profound education breeds humility.” What ails us is a sense of arrogance that there is only one side to an argument – the one we profess, that those who disagree with us are stupid, elitist, blind or deplorable. As Mark Twain suggested, when you find yourself among only those who think like you, it may be time to regroup. Would not teachers in schools and colleges be wise to require students to debate issuess from a position opposite from what they believe? Would not that help them formulate their own ideas, as well as to help them learn something of the opinions of their opponents? Should not college be a time to be skeptical and a place to delve into the murkiness of history, to learn from the wisdom of those who came before?

"Impeachment, Instead of Debate Over Capitalism and Sovereignty"

Sydney M. Williams

swtotd.blogspot.com

Thought of the Day

“Impeachment, Instead of Debate Over Capitalism and Sovereignty”

September 30, 2019

 “‘No, no!’ said the [Red] Queen. ‘Sentence first – verdict afterwards.’”

‘Stuff and nonsense!’ said Alice loudly. ‘The idea of having the sentence first.’”

                                                                                    Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland, 1865

                                                                                    Lewis Carroll (1832-1898)

                                                                                               

In the case of the President Trump and impeachment, a verdict has been rendered without a trial. A visceral hatred for Mr. Trump, an outsider who campaigned on cleaning the swamp that was (and is) Washington, D.C., is all that Democrats need as prima facie evidence.

Outside this maelstrom of malice, the West faces stark alternatives. But instead of debating issues that will affect us, our children and grandchildren, specifically capitalism and sovereignty, politicians have chosen to throw up red herrings, like climate change, white supremacy, equality, gender identity, immigration, etc. Progressives have tried to undo the will of the people, i.e. to deny Brexit to the people of the UK and to declare fraudulent an election in the U.S. Debate is impossible when personal, venal hatred replaces deliberative and respectful disagreement. An intentional consequence has been unprecedented scrutiny of Mr. Trump and his appointees. With individuals vilified and high legal expenses incurred, lives have been destroyed for some and bankrupted for others. Is it any wonder so many have left the Administration?

This is not meant to trivialize these other issues. The constant effect of an ever-changing climate is something we must monitor and do what we can to alter and/or adapt, but we shouldn’t let emotions substitute for reason, or use children to score political points. No real conservative denies the existence of white oppression and privilege, but we question its ubiquity. Where it exists, it must be confronted and addressed. Equality is tricky and subject to interpretation – are we referring to equality of opportunities or equality of outcomes? Conservatives believe in the former, while progressives desire the latter. Conservatives are mindful that the favored should bear some responsibility for those less fortunate, but they believe that concern should be manifested in the actions of individuals, not diktats of the state, for morality and compassion are characteristics of people, not bureaucracies. Al genders deserve respect. As for immigration, politicians believe this crisis unresolved is better than were it resolved.

The last few days have seen more red herrings sown. A Presidential election is just over a year away. The economy, the single most important consideration in a Presidential election, is humming, not as fast as Mr. Trump would like, but better than it had been. Unemployment is at record lows and employment at record highs, especially for African Americans and Hispanics. Incomes have increased, particularly for those at the low end of the income scale. The tax bill and deregulation have not only helped the economy and tax receipts, they have helped the poor and hurt the wealthy in high-tax states. Joe Biden, in my opinion, has been permanently sidelined by the disclosure of his and his son’s antics in Ukraine. With the exception of candidates like Tulsi Gabbard, Amy Klobuchar and Michael Bennet (all polling in single digits), Democrat Presidential candidates have swung far to the left, putting at risk their aspirations and that of their Party. Candidates could, legitimately, question excessive spending on the part of Republicans, but their (Democrats) proposed programs would result in even more spending and greater deficits.  

Democrats, thus, have resorted to politics of personal destruction. Adam Schiff (D-CA), the self-righteous, pompous chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, lied to Congress without consequence, when last week he pretended to read a section from the transcript of Mr. Trump’s July 25^th call to the Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky[1]. Schiff later claimed his words were meant “to be, at least in part, parody.” Parody! Is parody acceptable for a U.S. Congressman who is chairman of a committee investigating a sitting President under threat of impeachment? Where is his sense of decency and respect? Why have we, as a nation, seen civility sink to such depths? As well, the entertainment world and the media serve as supplicants to their elite masters on Capitol Hill, using, for example, verbs like “implores” and “demands,” as ABC News did, and “pressures” as the New York Times did, to distort the words President Trump used in his telephone conversation with the Ukrainian President. Why haven’t all news outlets printed the transcript and let the people read it for themselves? In the transcript, Mr. Trump concludes his request about Biden with the words “if you can look into it…” “When you’ve once said a thing,” spoke the Red Queen to Alice in Through the Looking Glass, “that fixes it, and you must take the consequences.” Mr. Trump is an easy target. He was never one of the “good old boys,” as he came to the Presidency with no previous political experience. He is not “of the manor born” – something, ironically, that appeals to those who claim to fight for the poor and oppressed. Mr. Trump is curt and humorless. He is no one’s image of a victim; nevertheless, like Shakespeare’s Lear, he is “…more sinn’d against than sinning.”

What is especially dispiriting is that politicians ignore two critical issues that deserve debate: Are we better off with a political-economic system based on principles of “refereed” free-market capitalism or one that tilts toward socialism and statism?  President Obama raised the specter of an all-consuming, compassionate state in his video, “Life of Julia” and in the Obamacare ad with “Pajama Boy” – a frightening prospect for those of us who value freedom, but perhaps comforting to those who prefer the cocoon of a benevolent government. The stakes have been raised further with the proposed “Green New Deal,” healthcare for all, free college and a universal basic income. With those added services, what are the costs and what individual rights would be foregone? The second issue is one of national sovereignty versus global governance. President Trump spoke of this in his speech at the UN, which received little coverage and no applause from sitting members, whose self-interest is the continued strengthening of global institutions. Nevertheless, the question needs be asked: Would you prefer to live in a world where global governance dominates individual nations, or is the world safer when sovereign nations predominate? History tells of risks to individuals when empires and reichs are forced on people and nations. Yet, the West is moving toward a world where global governments play an ever-enlarging role, and entities like the UN and the European Union are gaining ever-increasing powers. On one side, we have free people and sovereign states; on the other, unelected bureaucratic enacting and administering laws. The West deserves a serious debate on these issues and an exploration of the consequences of what current trends portend.

Impeachment is a serious business. It should be. Removal from office by impeachment is reserved for those who have been tried and convicted for treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. Two previous President have been impeached by the House of Representatives – Andrew Johnson in 1868 and Bill Clinton in 1998 – but neither was removed from office by the U.S. Senate. Richard Nixon resigned in 1974. Had he not, he would certainly have been impeached and probably removed.  Impeachment should not to be used for political purposes, to destroy a President whose crime is that some people don’t like him. The politicization of the Constitution will have long-term ramifications. It will take us down a path that leads away from the Republic that Benjamin Franklin assured us would be ours, “if we can keep it.” To stay true to that path, we should be debating and considering the issues mentioned above.

---

[1] Zelensky can also be spelled with two “y’s” or with an “i” before the “y.” I chose the simpler version.