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

Con fails to answer my points adequately. I will look at his argument and dissect its flaws. Con-"Does a system in which the talented are chosen and moved ahead on the basis of their achievement worthy of praise or award if the constitution of its society is habitually biased and immersed in the customary practice of directing irrational attitudes of hostility against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristics?" I will assume he meant to say "is" at the beginning of the sentence rather than "does." The answer is clearly yes to that question. To judge a person by talent alone, fighting against prejudice and against a discriminatory society, is worthy of praise. To actively combat and ignore irrational prejudices by judging only on merit is a good thing, not a bad thing. I need to ask con a very important question. I have identified one alternative to the irrational institutional discrimination that plagues many societies: judging by merit alone. I assume we both agree it is better to judge by merit alone than to follow institutionalized discriminatory tendencies. What is your alternative to judging on merit? Judging a person for any position on criteria other than their merit for the position is, by definition, irrational. This doesn't mean nobody would judge by non-merit factors such as race, religion, etc., only that it is irrational. Con-"Judging people by merit is fine...prejudging certain people as undeserving or unworthy of merit for superficial and trivial reasons annuls any authenticity or validity a system that practices has and obliterates any chance of it being a meritocracy." That's quite a mouthful. However, also doesn't make any sense as an attack on the concept of a meritocracy. By definition, "prejudging certain people as undeserving or unworthy of merit for superficial and trivial reasons" is not meritocratic. What con is saying is that a society that isn't meritocratic isn't meritocratic. It's a tautology, and says absolutely nothing. Con-""I assert that any society that has institutional prejudice and bias cannot justifiably claim to be meritorious." Firstly, meritocracy is a way out of institutional prejudice. Secondly, meritorious and meritocratic aren't synonymous. Meritorious means "deserving reward or praise." [1] This sentence is not relevant to the debate. Con-"Also, the individuals making the decisions about who would deserve merit would not be trustworthy in such a system." This sentence doesn't make sense for several reasons. Firstly, one doesn't deserve merit: one has it. Secondly, merit is, at least in theory, objective. In a meritocracy, individuals would be given opportunities, such as a spot at a prestigious university, based on their ability to succeed. Judging an applicant's "merit" is assessing various factors and coming to an informed decision of his likelihood of success. GPA and college admissions exams are good predictors of college success, so they are used by colleges for admissions. [2] There is no "decision about who deserves merit": this is simply a misunderstanding of meritocracy. Con then points out several potential roadblocks to my example of a meritocracy (too long to quote). However, his claims that the 1% will control everything are both ridiculous and unsubstantiated. The single biggest issue is this: it's not my job to show a meritocracy would be perfect. All I have to do is show that it has a non-zero amount of merit. There are a lot of issues in trying to establish a meritocracy in a discriminatory society, but it is better than succumbing to the discrimination and therefore has some merit, which is all I have to demonstrate. Con-"Also, affirmative action is not racially discriminatory as it protects other disadvantaged members of the society such as the handicapped, women, gay/lesbian, etc.." This is a non sequitur. Affirmative action does affect other groups, but the aspect that deals with race is racially discriminatory. Con-"A person that is enrolled in a college under the protection of an affirmative action measure is not taking a spot from another supposedly more qualified person." First of all, the "supposedly" more qualified person is objectively more qualified by fair standards. Secondly, the less qualified is taking a spot from the more qualified because colleges have only a limited number of spots. Con drops my argument that affirmative action harms minorities by making them less likely to get a degree. Con-"Peter Greene blogged an article he wrote entitled "Who Put the 'Merit' in 'Meritocracy'?" Etc. Firstly, Greene is talking about measuring public school teachers, not students. Secondly, the reason why colleges use standardized testing is because it is a predictor of college success, as I explained already. Third, colleges use lots of factors. That's why it's called "holistic admissions." I agree that standardized tests aren't the only measurement to be used to judge a teacher's aptitude, but this has little to do with affirmative action. Con-"The article you cited states'" etc. Really? You're not debating the article; you're debating me. Con-"This statement is also erroneous because the societal practice of actual prejudice and bias on the basis of race and gender is what breeds the resentment between "whites and blacks, women and men and various ethnic groups"." Con didn't rebut his claim. He just stated there are multiple sources of resentment. Con-"This is also a fallacious statement as affirmative action takes into account historical acts of bias and prejudice while admitting these acts are still being committed in the present." The statement wasn't fallacious, as con failed to demonstrate. The vast majority of white male college students haven't contributed to institutionalized discrimination, so they shouldn't be punished for it. Con-"The arbitrary and totalitarian methodology of measuring merit was questioned later in the article" I am not advocating totalitarianism! Con has no evidence that the means of determining merit are in any way totalitarian, and merit is, in this context, the likelihood of success, so it is not at all arbitrary. Con uses emotional language to try and make up for his lack of logical arguments. On Wikipedia. You made claims dependent on having a reliable source. I showed your source to be invalid. Therefore, your claim is baseless and unwarranted. It is your job to prove a positive claim, and you have no evidence for it. Sources 1- http://www.thefreedictionary.com... 2- http://www.danielwillingham.com...