Thread by @AmarAmarasingam

1. So some quick thoughts on that Jordan Peterson op-ed, because I know some of you are going to fall for his argument.

I agree overall that merit and equity need to be better balanced, but I can't think of a worse person to have this conversation with than Jordan Peterson.

2. Look, I'll be the first to agree that "fill out a form online to show us you've thought about intersectionality" isn't the solution that some institutions think it is. They just haven't thought of anything better.

3. The problem with some of these critics (like Peterson's op-ed and George Will before him), is that they point to these annoying examples (which everyone agrees is dumb) and then try to dismiss the need for equity altogether.

4. Advocating for equity (as justice and fairness) is not to be against meritocracy. It is the demand that merit be judged on an equal playing field. It is the argument that structural disadvantages and prevailing prejudices are actually working against a pure meritocracy.

5. It is true that, in practice, this has at times descended into ridiculous "check box if you thought about hiring a woman" initiatives, which don't really do anything. But, that doesn't negate the truth of the problem.

6. Bureaucracies have dealt with this like bureaucracies deal with anything: never met a webinar they didn't like. And that sucks.

7. But, the notion that meritocracy happens in some idealistic void absent socioeconomic, racial, ethnic, gender, and other factors is wrong *points to literally decades of research*

8/8. There are indeed adult conversations to be had about these issues, but they have to be honest about trying to offer new and better solutions - not more smug op-eds.