It seems as good a time as any to point out that the environment in which people like this are making decisions is the one in which equal opportunity/affirmative action/DEI become tenable, if not necessary.
For those of you whinging about how unfair scope-broadening to force decision makers to at least consider marginalized people for opportunities is, the problem is not these initiatives, it's these people, who make it impossible to determine if someone is being rejected for merit or for some other reason.
In general, we have to get away from the idea that the highest score along a narrow measure is the be-all-end-all of merit, anyway. Set a reasonable floor of competence, and then either run a lottery or begin looking at other qualities.
What I've learned recently from these meritocracy advocates is competence is about your skin color. Black person working on a plane = disaster waiting to happen, no further evidence needed, but if you've got a nice and competent skin color and no other relevant credentials you're good to go at Andreessen Horowitz
My favorite example of this is Pete Hegseth. The fact that a man with zero qualifications, experience, or demonstrated aptitude to run an organization with 3.4 million employees and an $850 billion annual budget can go on and rail about how "woke hiring" allows unqualified people to rise to positions of prominence in government just shows that some people are completely incapable of shame or introspection.
The resumes of our former and current Sec of Defense:
General Lloyd Austin (Black):
- 12th Commander of United States Central Command
- 33rd Vice Chief of Staff of the Army
- 40th Director of the Joint Staff
Command:
- United States Central Command
- Vice Chief of Staff of the Army
- United States Forces – Iraq
- Multi-National Corps – Iraq
- XVIII Airborne Corps
- 10th Mountain Division
- 3rd Brigade, 82nd Airborne Division
- 2nd Battalion, 505th Parachute Infantry Regiment
Awards: 31
Major Pete Hegseth (White):
- Fox News Weekend Host
Command: None
Awards: 4
When a guy with the second bio replaces a guy with the first bio under the banner of restoring meritocracy and rooting out DEI in the armed services, I think the message is clear what they mean by "meritocracy".
For those of you whinging about how unfair scope-broadening to force decision makers to at least consider marginalized people for opportunities is, the problem is not these initiatives, it's these people, who make it impossible to determine if someone is being rejected for merit or for some other reason.
In general, we have to get away from the idea that the highest score along a narrow measure is the be-all-end-all of merit, anyway. Set a reasonable floor of competence, and then either run a lottery or begin looking at other qualities.