How do we choose employees? How do we decide whom to advance to a more senior position? How do we decide which students to accept? There are three ways to choose. While each has its weaknesses, some ways are worse than others.
My folks spent their retirement years in Las Vegas, about a 20 minute drive north of the strip. We generally visited the strip once on each trip, mainly to see the flower exhibit and fountains at the Bellagio Hotel. In 2022, we made our way into town and were astounded to see thousands upon thousands of people dressed in various football jerseys. We had landed in the middle of the NFL draft over at Caesar's palace, and Las Vegas Blvd. was jammed with 100,000 football fans, coaches, players, and media personalities. The last person picked in that draft, the official “Mr. Irrelevant”, was Brock Purdy.
Brock Purdy worked his way from the last draft pick into an elite quarterback with the San Francisco 49ers. His 116.9 passing rating is currently the highest in the league. His story is the quintessential tale of meritocracy. He was drafted by the 49ers because they saw enough in him to spend their final pick on him and not on one of the hundreds of other college players still available at the end of the draft. He started on the bench but when he was called in, he played brilliantly. He went 6-0 to start his professional career and lost in the NFC championship game after injuring his elbow.
Purdy’s story is the American story of meritocracy. He did not have any particular connections to catapult him into the NFL or a starting position. He is like Tom Brady who was drafted in the sixth round out of Michigan and came in when New England’s starting quarterback, Drew Bledsoe, was seriously injured. He never looked back. Kurt Warner’s story is also inspiring, going from working in a grocery store to a Vince Lombardi Trophy. This is how America worked: people moved up according to their performance, not according to skin color, their last name, or some bribe.
Recommended
While meritocracy has the advantage of advancing the best and most deserving individuals, it does have a blind spot. I remember in the Harvard lightweight rowing program there was this one fellow who was an outstanding rower. He was also a jerk. He was known as a boat breaker because he was always barking at somebody about not rowing well enough. Nobody wanted him in his boat as he ruined the camaraderie. So meritocracy focuses on a person being excellent in one or a few particular activities but may ignore other factors that could influence a person’s overall performance. No system is perfect, including meritocracy.
But what are the alternatives of meritocracy? We see in DEI the disaster of Harvard’s president, Claudine Gay. Her academic record was poor, and there appears to be serious questions about her plagiarizing other authors. When I was at Harvard, plagiarism was one of the few violations that could lead to expungement—a complete removal of one’s Harvard record, as if the person had never been there. In virtually every appointment where race, sex, or sexual orientation is the key factor for selection, we see total incompetents like Kamala Harris and Peter Buttigieg performing horrifically in their respective jobs. When the focus is on some factor totally unrelated to the potential performance of a candidate for a given position, there can be no surprise when the person in question fails.
Picture if sports had a player DEI obligation. Basketball teams might be forced to select a couple of white players to balance their black teammates to give this demographic better representation. If sports were forced to pick anything less than the best players available, the quality of competition would suffer. And since there is so much money tied up in sports and related merchandise and advertising revenues, there is no time for DEI games of last name or skin color. Get the best players, win, and make more and more money.
A third approach for acceptance or advancement is nepotism, bribes, or connections. Much of the world works within these parameters. George Soros’ son is taking over his “philanthropic” efforts to destroy western civilization. Did Soros senior do a talent search? Did he hire an HR firm? No, he told his son one morning that he would be taking over the family business. Many people advance due to their last name or connections. One of the best things I heard on this topic came from Itzhak Perlman’s daughter Navah, who is a concert pianist: “My last name definitely can get me in the door. But if I cannot perform as required, I will not get the job.” Oftentimes, a “nepo baby” actually is outstanding and the fact that they got the job through their family connections is irrelevant to their successful career. A meritocratic job search might not have yielded a better candidate.
So how will we advance people in American society? Will it be through meritocracy? The DEI argument against meritocracy is that not everybody starts from the same position, so not everyone has the same shot at success. That may be true, but the cure is far worse than the disease. The problem with this ultimately racist system is that it promotes people who often do not have the competencies for the job or position given them. And ultimately that is a disservice to the person who got into say Harvard but is not equipped to succeed there or the doctor who is expected to perform beyond his actual capabilities. Meritocracy is imperfect. A person may be a virtuoso in one area but not much of a person in other aspects of his life. But the DEI alternative leads to failure at all levels of American society. People are accepted to schools where they cannot succeed or catapulted into jobs for which they are incompetent. DEI makes white liberals sleep well at night—look how I helped a black woman become president of Harvard. But the pernicious effect of DEI on the failed candidate kicked upstairs and the institution that now has an incompetent leader or employee should far offset the good feeling that liberals feel in supposedly helping those less fortunate. Rampant crime in big cities is based on the same defective reasoning—that criminals are disadvantaged, and thus they are not prosecuted for shoplifting or are let out of jail without any bail for serious criminal activity. American cities are being destroyed so that white liberals can feel good about helping the less fortunate at the expense of the vast majority who play by the rules and do not engage in any criminal behavior. People and stores are abandoning cities where Soros’ prosecutors let criminals run wild. Some of the greatest cities in America are going down the drain. Forty percent of San Francisco residents are considering leaving and not hanging around to watch Brock Purdy play.
The real efforts to even any playing field should be in improving the starting conditions of minority families, so that their kids can compete on equal footing with the best candidates out there. Until its recent descent into woke hell, the armed forces did not care what color you were in order to become a SEAL or Green Beret—pass the required tests, and you are in. That same approach should be true for all aspects of American society. But such an effort would actually take a lot of work: a majority of black children are born out of wedlock. Much of childhood success is dependent on a stable family situation. But liberals do not want to invest the time, money and effort to fix the foundations of failed communities. So they take it out on others by denying an Asian candidate entrance to Harvard so as to make room for a far less qualified black candidate. Maybe that makes the liberals feel good, but it is a recipe for America losing its unique place as a country where anyone has a shot at success. Polls show that many people are giving up on the American dream. Such an outcome is no surprise, when all of your efforts and playing by the rules are not rewarded with success but rather with an admonition that you are the wrong color, race or religion. Racism is racism, and DEI is a racist system that only brings failure and division for both the individual and American society as a whole.
America's meritocratic system has brought unparalleled success and material wealth to the country. So however flawed a meritocratic system may appear, it is far better than the alternatives. America's future success depends on our going back to a meritocratic system for advancement.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member