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

noun: merit 1. the quality of being particularly good or worthy, especially so as to deserve praise or reward. verb: merit; 3rd person present: merits; past tense: merited; past participle: merited; gerund or present participle: meriting 1.deserve or be worthy of (something, especially reward, punishment, or attention). I have already addressed the fact that a meritocracy cannot exist in a society that endorses or contains institutional racism. As the definition for institutional racism explained "Institutionalized discrimination prohibits the attainment of societal meritocracy." http://en.wikipedia.org... Thus a meritocracy can not have any merit in such a system. It may cause some change, however, it is not worthy of or it does not merit the term meritocracy. Such a system is not worthy of praise or reward. There were more alternatives than "judging people by an arbitrary factor such as skin color", however, these alternatives would have required admitting to past atrocities committed by the U.S., public declaration that racial bias was a ploy to distract, confuse, and divide people, acknowledgement that racial supremacy is a fraudulent farce fabricated to promote a specific agenda, etc. There would also have needed to have been reparations provided to survivors of said atrocities. Affirmative action benefits a host of disenfranchised groups, yet, it does not directly address slavery as was done for the Japanese Americans relocated and imprisoned during WW II. The U.S. government eventually disbursed more than $1.6 billion in reparations to 82,219 Japanese Americans who had been interned and their heirs. [1] It does not address those native Americans not yet given reparations for the robbery of land. Also, affirmative action was created as a result of the governments acknowledgement that the system was biased and they couldn't solve the issue without setting quotas. These same quotas, although they serve to employ some who are disenfranchised, can also be seen as limits to the numbers exceeding the quotas. Achievement was not being noticed, hence, the creation of affirmative action. "This is why we need a meritocracy, not why it's bad. A meritocracy gives everyone equal opportunity and de-marginalizes skilled individuals. In a free market meritocracy, there is a strong incentive to tap in to all available potential." Again, if the society is inherently racist, sexist etc. it cannot act on the true principles of a meritocracy. Currently, schools are basically segregated based on class and race in the United States. Institutionalized racism is thoroughly ingrained in society, even after the civil rights era. An era which some may argue currently benefits more 'other' minorities than the individuals who fought and died for its accomplishments. Basically, 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. If there was a "strong incentive to tap in to all available potential", discrimination and bias would not be as much of a factor as they are. Schools would be equal in their resources and commitment. There would not be such an inequitable distribution of resources. etc. Sources: http://www.democracynow.org... [1]