The meritocracy as constructed in this country is already aristocratic. That’s the point of the critique. You’re smart enough to know that, but too beholden to your finders to be honest about it.
https://twitter.com/rpondiscio/status/1404171724480974850
*funders. No one is against the idea of "merit," but the whole point of the critique of the meritocracy is that it rewards things other than merit because its structured by those already advantaged by the system.
For example, landing a sweet gig at a conservative think tank, and then jumping to another conservative think tank could be viewed as meritorious, or it could be a consequence of a simple willingness to spew opinions that the funders approve of and further their aims.
Just as a thought experiment, how meritorious would @rpondiscio be viewed by AEI or the Thomas Fordham institute if he issued an opinion publicly supporting teaching CRT or turning into a critic of charter schools? All that merit would magically melt away.
If your status and position depend on adherence to the opinions and goals of the tribe, perhaps "merit" is the wrong way of thinking about it. Thoughts, @rpondiscio?
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
