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

prejudice:noun merriam-webster.com : an unfair feeling of dislike for a person or group because of race, sex, religion, etc. : a feeling of like or dislike for someone or something especially when it is not reasonable or logical MERITOCRACY:noun merriam-webster.com 1. a system in which the talented are chosen and moved ahead on the basis of their achievement 2. leadership selected on the basis of intellectual criteria inherent:adjective merriam-webster.com : belonging to the basic nature of someone or something : involved in the constitution or essential character of something : belonging by nature or habit : biased:adjective merriam-webster.com : having or showing a bias : having or showing an unfair tendency to believe that some people, ideas, etc., are better than others. 1: exhibiting or characterized by bias (see 1bias); especially : prejudiced 2: tending to yield one outcome more frequently than others in a statistical experiment 3: having an expected value different from the quantity or parameter estimated society:noun 3a : an enduring and cooperating social group whose members have developed organized patterns of relationships through interaction with one another institution:noun : a custom, practice, or law that is accepted and used by many people prejudice:noun 2c : an irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristics 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? Again I ask, how can such a system be worthy of praise? By definition, those considered to be talented will be chosen from a group that is given preference for inconsequential, trivial, and irrelevant qualities or traits such as skin tone, gender, religion, culture, etc.. The existence of bias and prejudice will eliminate those considered to be undesirable from the population pool from which the chosen will be selected. "We are not debating whether a true meritocracy can exist or not but whether, if one did exist, it would have any merit" Untrue, as the question illustrates in its extended form. The question is can a system with such weaknesses or failures be considered to be a meritocracy or worthy of praise? If anything, a system with such shortcomings deserves demerits. 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. We are not debating anti-meritocratic aspects of the United States alone, I assert that any society that has institutional prejudice and bias cannot justifiably claim to be meritorious. Also, the individuals making the decisions about who would deserve merit would not be trustworthy in such a system. In regard to your experiment, the employer would still be choosing his applicants from a tainted source. Also, individuals who are qualified for the position may not even make it through his interview process because of bias of the interviewer or inability to obtain certain documents required because of the biased institutionalized framework of the system at large. He would only be choosing the most talented individuals that the biased and prejudiced society has to offer. Thus, these are not truly the most talented. They are a privileged class. Such a society may eventually result in a small portion of the population (say 1%) controlling all of the wealth and resources. I wonder what it would be like to live in such a society...(sarcasm) At most the employer would just be helping to maintain the biased system, as the individuals he hired would likely be prejudiced themselves having been raised in the biased environment. Even if those who he hired had been victims of the bias, they would have little chance for advancement beyond the confines of his sheltered factory. Any chance to advance or be entrepreneurs would be stifled and hampered by the bias of the society at large. Without addressing the fundamental causes of the bias and prejudice that would exist in the educational system, the business sector, housing etc. the quasi-meritocracy could never be given any validity. Also, I don't think it should be considered heroic to offer equal opportunity to all applicants if you own the factory. In regards to affirmative action, this is a common misconception. Affirmative action is an attempt to fix a system that has been proven to be biased, prejudiced, and discriminatory. It is not a handout or free meal. It is an admission by the government in a society that certain members of the population are being purposely, disproportionately and unjustifiably locked out of equal participation in all aspects of the society for trivial reasons. Thus, affirmative action seeks to level the playing field. Also, affirmative action is not racially discriminatory as it protects other disadvantaged members of the society such as the handicapped, women, gay/lesbian, etc.. Therefore, a person who classifies themselves as white would be able to benefit from affirmative action measures. 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. They are being offered an opportunity that would otherwise never have been extended to them because of the biased and prejudiced conditions of the society. All of the other supposed evidence you provided on that topic is purely stereotypical and speculative. It also relies heavily on generalizations. However, on the subject of test scores, Peter Greene blogged an article he wrote entitled "Who Put the 'Merit' in 'Meritocracy'?" in which he asks, "Who decided that the "merit" in "meritocracy" is a standardized test score? And does anybody have a clue what the justification, the basis for that definition of "merit" might be? Or did it because measuring merit is really hard, but scoring bubble tests is really easy? Because I think your definition of "merit" is without merit. This was the judgment, the subjective judgment, of some individuals. And don't try to slide off with your baloney about how you're totally calling for "multiple measures" because those are similarly one-size-fits-all meritless -- and in most cases they are a thin screen of smoke trying to hide that, yes, in fact, our major measure of merit is supposed to be a standardized test score." [2] The article you cited states, "Furthermore, because affirmative action creates winners and losers, it also breeds resentment between whites and blacks, women and men and various ethnic groups." [1] Again, affirmative action can benefit other groups besides racial minorities. 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". The article goes on to state, "It also treats as legitimate the proposition that historically victimized groups can and should seek recompense from individuals who had no hand in the victimization." [1] 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. Affirmative action is not reparations. The present-day existence of the bias and prejudice is admitted in the article you cited which documents, "This is not say that we should stop seeking public and private remedies to the afflictions of race and gender inequality in America." [1] Quite simply, if society was not biased or prejudiced there would be no need for affirmative action. Also, I have not taken any position for or against affirmative action, I merely couched it in the proper parameters. Again, your assertion was that the question I posed was simply "whether or not a meritocracy is worthy of merit", yet, the full question was Does a meritocracy have any merit in an inherently biased society steeped in institutional prejudice? The extended version of the question provides greater clarity. As I have proven, even a meritocracy formed in such a quasi-meritocracy is tainted and invalid. Also as I stated earlier, "...a meritocracy that seeks to maintain some of its inequalities and biases for the benefit of 'certain' groups is no meritocracy at all. Whatever positives that derive from such a system are band aids for the issues that prevent true equal treatment, access and perception." Who decides who has merit in the meritocracy anyway? The arbitrary and totalitarian methodology of measuring merit was questioned later in the article, "Who Put the 'Merit' in 'Meritocracy'?" which states, "A meritocracy that insist we have but one measure, and that everybody should be made to use that one standard and measure -- that's not a meritocracy...You cannot standardize a meritocracy, not even if you pretend to find a standardized measure of merit." [2] Side Note If I quote Wikipedia, it is your duty to prove the information I cite to be inaccurate...if you cannot do so...then it stands on its own 'merit'...pun intended...lol Sources http://www.bizjournals.com... [1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com... [2]