Thread by @HZiauddeen

Using meritocracy as opposition to representation and equity:
A very predictable response to calls for greater representation and equity, is ‘the job/opportunity should go to the best person’.
Here’s a thread about this rather devious tactic.
(1/n)

This thread has been occasioned by a fair bit of ‘should go to the best person’ that I’ve seen recently, as in response to the #BLACK_LIVES_MATTER protests, several organisations have been trying (or seen to be trying) to improve their representation of BAME individuals.
(2/n)

One hears this whenever there is an attempt to meaningfully improve representation of any minority group (e.g. women, BAME) in any system. By meaningful representation, I mean sharing of power, from being part of the voices that are heard, to making actual decisions.
(3/n)

By minority here, I mean anyone who is not part of the group that dominates the system's power structures. Women in male dominated organisations, Black people in white dominated organisations, etc. I mainly use these 2 groups as illustrative examples here.
(4/n)

So being a woman of colour in a senior administrative committee is not really meaningful representation unless the committee has some actual power to effect change or challenge the organisation, and she is allowed to share that.
(5/n)

This kind of not particularly meaningful representation is offered relatively readily, often resulting in the minority group members doing more work and emotional labour, with little return.
(6/n)

One final point, representation does not have to be immediate, even the opportunity for future representation will elicit this response e.g. admission to particular courses or universities.
(7/n)

'The job/opportunity should go to the best person’ seems to be arguing for meritocracy, but implicitly contains the belief that the minority group is only getting the job/opportunity because they are a minority i.e. there is no way they could get in on their own merits.
(8/n)

This ‘affirmative action hire’ argument gets people both ways. If you get in on merit, people will think (and often speak) of you as an ‘affirmative action hire’. If you do get in through some quota or initiative, then you are an ‘affirmative action hire’.
(9/n)

It doesn't matter how rigorous and exacting the requirements you had to meet were.
(10/n)

Any idea of meritocracy that does take into account the field of competition and who is allowed to or can compete, is a flawed one. 'Meritocracies' tend to reflect the power structures of their societies e.g. patriarchal, white, upper caste etc.
(11/n)

There likely multiple factors but two major ones are access to opportunity (who has the means to enter the field) and homophily (how similar is one to the people who are already in the field). The closer you are to the in-group, the more power you can have.
(12/n)

These are usually not considered as the common assumption is that the people who are in the field are there because they are the best. It could equally be, they are the best because they are the only ones who are there.
(13/n)

So the argument says that if a Black man or a woman is good enough, they would get the job just on the strength of their abilities (and not because they were exceptional enough to overcome the barriers against them).
(14/n)

This allows the in-group to wilfully ignore, systemic racism, misogyny, etc that mean that people from the out-group are often not even allowed on to the field/have no means to get there, and if they did, they are held up to much higher standards.
(15/n)

There is also another part of this argument, which is ‘why should I have to give up any of my power or my opportunity to have power for someone who does not deserve it on the strength of their own abilities (as I see them)?’
(16/n)

Or if one considers the hierarchy of disadvantage, someone in the second place (a white woman in the US/UK) may resent someone in the last place (a black, disabled woman in the US/UK) believing them to be further depriving them of opportunity.
(17/n)

Bottom line, when people say the best person should get the job, they are essentially opposing any reform of the system that would actually allow (in time) the best person to get the job.
(18/n)

The ‘in time’ is important because centuries of systemic misogyny and racism cannot be overcome through individual efforts alone. It requires active changes to the system to allow more equal representation so that over time the system becomes organically representative.
(19/n)

Otherwise what's being said is, 'Well, let’s see if any minority individuals turn up who are so good that they break through all the barriers we’ve put up against them and then try and reform the system from within.'

(n/n)