Does a meritocracy have any merit in an inherently biased society steeped in institutional prejudice

Before. I begin, I need to correct a misconception that pro seems to have about the debate. Pro seems to be saying that a meritocracy cannot exist in a society with institutionalized discrimination. However, this is not the resolution. The question we are trying to answer is, "Does a meritocracy have any merit in an inherently biased society steeped in institutional prejudice?" We are not debating whether a true meritocracy can exist or not but whether, if one did exist, it would have any merit. Pro contends that judging people by merit is not a good thing. I disagree. I completely agree that America is not yet a true meritocracy. Therefore, as it is not a meritocracy, features of America that are anti-meritocratic are not arguments against meritocracy itself, which is what we are debating. Please, for all of us, stop quoting Wikipedia! It is unreliable. If Wikipedia is your best source, you have a pretty weak case. Let's have a simple thought experiment. Let's say that in 1850, in the U.S., a factory owner decided to hire people of all races based solely on merit. I think we can both agree the U.S. was suffering serious institutionalized discrimination at that time. Would the factory owner's decision to fight the institutionalized discrimination by establishing a meritocracy not be worthy of merit? I believe that instituting a meritocracy and standing up to extreme racism and discrimination would be very worthy of praise, even heroic. Con does have one point against meritocracy in his argument that needs addressing. He appears to advocate for affirmative action, an anti-meritocratic, racially discriminatory policy that has harmed people of all races. Ironically, though its stated purpose is to help minorities, it actually hurts them. In a meritocratic system of college admissions, a college would select the students most likely to succeed in college by looking at factors such as high school GPA and scores on college admissions exams such as the SAT and ACT. However, with affirmative action, a college takes a spot from someone more likely to succeed and gives it to someone less likely to succeed. It's no surprise that at schools with affirmative action, favored minorities are much less likely to succeed. They are more likely to choose easier but less valuable degrees and are less likely to get a degree. [1] By promoting a mismatch between student and college, affirmative action holds back successful disfavored demographics and sets up less successful members of favored demographics up to fail. A black student that deserves admittance to UT Austin but gets accepted to Harvard because of affirmative action is likely to fall behind and not get his degree, possibly dropping out, whilst a white student that deserves admittance to Harvard but can only go to UT Austin because of affirmative action also gets set back, though not as much as his black counterpart. Ultimately, the best way to stop discriminating is to stop discriminating. Once again, the argument that a meritocracy cannot be obtained by a discriminatory society is off topic. The question is whether or not a meritocracy is worthy of merit. I have shown that it is. Ultimately, there is a simple question: should we judge by merit or by factors like race, gender, and ethnicity? The answer is clearly merit. Sources 1- http://www.bizjournals.com...