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

merit:noun http://dictionary.reference.com...=/ 3. merits, the inherent rights and wrongs of a matter, as a lawsuit, unobscured by procedural details, technicalities, personal feelings, etc. First, as Pro has identified an error in my phraseology, I will phrase it, properly, so as to provide clarity. Does a system in which the talented are chosen and moved ahead on the basis of their achievement have any claim to respect and praise or possess the quality of being particularly good or worthy if the constitution of its society is habitually or inherently biased and immersed in the customary practice of directing irrational attitudes of hostility against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristics? "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." The questions that need to be asked is...who is the judge? ...by what guidelines is a person to be measured? If a society is inherently biased and immersed in institutional prejudice, how can any judge at one of these institutions have any validity? As the 3rd definition provided for merit states, the society itself is inherently wrong and obscured by bias. Address the past wrongs and end the bias before seeking merit. In my opinion, such a society and any quasi-meritocracy formed within it can have no merit until it acknowledges its flaws and attempts to make those affected whole. As race (a false social concept in itself) persists as a societal flaw and racism is still prevalent in society, choosing from the talented of the groups that are biased and prejudiced against who were lucky or blessed enough to have made it through the barriers presented by the bias and prejudice is not meritocratic. It also ignores the lack of validity and merit that those who do not face those barriers represent. The people who are chosen, under such conditions, are perceived to have merit by those who are accustomed to functioning in the biased and prejudiced environment. These individuals fit into the biased and prejudiced parameters set by the institutions and society. They are not necessarily the most talented. They are perceived to be the most suitable to fit into an inherently flawed system. An example if I may: Let's take the supposed national pastime - baseball. This in itself is a biased judgement but I digress. I have always felt that any statistic that is listed in the baseball records after 1887 (when the league was segregated) should be asterisked as the sport was refusing to allow a large portion of players to participate because of the color of their skin. [1] (the league was integrated before 1887) This asterisk should refer to a note that explains how the statistic was achieved in a unsportsmanlike, biased and handicapped environment. An environment I am sure we can agree was not meritocratic. However, Babe Ruth is still considered by some to be the greatest player to play the game. Babe Ruth played his entire career in a segregated league. The league remained segregated until October 23, 1945 when Jackie Robinson was signed by Branch Rickey. (majors April 15, 1947) According to your argument, Branch Rickey's team should be considered a meritocracy after he signed Robinson. However, Robinson was not considered to be the best "Black" player at the time - Josh Gibson was. As quoted by Larry Doby (the first 'black' player in the American League) in which Doby was quoted as saying, "One of the things that was disappointing and disheartening to a lot of the black players at the time was that Jack was not the best player. The best was Josh Gibson. I think that's one of the reasons Josh died so early"he was heartbroken." Jackie Robinson spent just one year in the 'Negro' Leagues, playing for the Kansas City Monarchs. [2] Robinson was not chosen because he was the most talented, he was chosen because he was the most pliable and tolerable. " Rickey could have chosen other 'Negro' League players with greater talent or more name recognition...Robinson lived among and formed friendships with whites growing up...Robinson promised Rickey that, for at least his rookie year, he would not respond to the inevitable verbal barbs and even physical abuse he would face on a daily basis." [3] Two things should be noted here: 1. Robinson was not allowed to be himself and was expected to quietly accept dehumanizing treatment 2. He was chosen for his willingness to accept the treatment Robinson later stated, "I cannot possibly believe that I have it made while so many black brothers and sisters are hungry, inadequately housed, insufficiently clothed, denied their dignity as they live in slums or barely exist on welfare." [3] This illustrates that a quasi-meritocracy does not address the biased and prejudiced system at large. In the 16 years he lived after his retirement in 1956, Robinson pushed baseball to hire blacks as managers and executives and even refused an invitation to participate in the 1969 Old Timers game because he did not yet see "genuine interest in breaking the barriers that deny access to managerial and front office positions." No major league team had a black manager until Frank Robinson was hired by the Cleveland Indians in 1975. The majors' first black general manager"the Atlanta Braves' Bill Lucas"wasn't hired until 1977. Last season (2012)... Black athletes represented only 8.8 percent of major-league players"a dramatic decline from the peak of 27 percent in 1975, and less than half the 19 percent in 1995. One quarter of last season's African-Americans players were clustered on three teams"the Yankees, Angels, and Dodgers...there are also sociological and economic reasons for the decline of black ballplayers...funding for public school baseball teams and neighborhood playgrounds with baseball fields has declined...Among today's 30 teams, there are only four managers of color...there is still an ongoing debate about the magnitude of racial progress, as measured by persistent residential segregation, a significantly higher poverty rate among blacks than whites, and widespread racism within our criminal justice and prison systems. [3] As the article states, this quasi-meritocracy eventually ended up with less representation of the disenfranchised population than were present when Robinson (the merited) was playing. As Hank Aaron observed, "When I first started playing, you had a lot of black players in the major leagues. Now, you don't have any (7.8%). So what progress have we made? You try to understand, but we're going backward." All that Aaron, 80, ever asked for from baseball is what Robinson desired, a level playing field in management positions. [4] The uneven playing field is what strips the merit away from your argument supporting a meritocracy in an institutionally biased society. Those who are not biased against do not have the same barriers and are admittedly receiving a handicap. Yet, the meritocracy claims they are the most talented. I assert that Rickey did not act on the principles of a true meritocracy as he chose the most presentable, tolerable and pliable representative - not the most talented. "Affirmative action does affect other groups, but the aspect that deals with race is racially discriminatory." Although we are not arguing affirmative action, I will address this (again) as Pro still seems to be confused. Again, as you admit "affirmative action does affect other groups". All of these groups, including the 'racial', are groups that the system admits have been and are being discriminated against. It is a leveling of the playing field or system that has been handicapped by racism, sexism, disablism, etc. Also, these individuals can be what you deem as 'white'. "First of all, the "supposedly" more qualified person is objectively more qualified by fair standards." Pro has given no proof of the claim of individuals being 'more qualified'. The assertion that 'minorities' are less likely to get a degree is still conjecture. "..Greene is talking about measuring public school teachers.." Pro needs to read the entire article. It is the holistic aspect that makes 'race' and testing a part of the whole. "You're not debating the article..." Pro cannot cite an article and whine when I use information from it. The article states, "This is not say that we should stop seeking public and private remedies to the afflictions of race and gender inequality in America." The article acknowledges the need for remedies to 'racial' and gender inequality. "Con didn't rebut his claim..multiple sources..." Inaccurate, as there is one source of the resentment. The perpetrators or beneficiaries of perpetration cannot be the victims. "The statement wasn't..." 'White' male college students aren't the institution...in this context, the colleges and universities are. "I am not.." totalitarian adj. - 2c. c : exercising autocratic powers The decision by a supposedly superiorly talented minority of who has merit is autocratic and totalitarian. Wikipedia - Are you now arguing the existence of institutional racism? In conclusion, I have demonstrated that a quasi-meritocracy decided by tainted judges in a biased society has no merit. Sources: http://ic.galegroup.com...|CX3468300301&u=mlin_m_carlisle&zid=d73b8d7fc1a2b925f623ab283f50bdc0 [1] http://bleacherreport.com... [2] http://www.theatlantic.com... [3] http://www.usatoday.com... [4]