The Aristocracy of Talent—A Review

A review of The Aristocracy of Talent: How Meritocracy Made the Modern World by Adrian Wooldridge. Allen Lane, 464 pages (June 2021)

Marcus Tullius Cicero was one of the most important literary figures of the ancient world, and today the study of Latin is divided between those who favor Cicero's crisp, elegant style and those who reject it as an artificiality. His extensive writings count for the majority of the Latin text we have preserved from his generation, so respected was his prose by his intellectual heirs in antiquity. An accomplished lawyer, philosopher of the skeptic school, and at times even a major political figure embroiled in the late Republican civil wars, Cicero achieved renown and stature in his own lifetime. His reputation and authority, however, were hard-won, taking a lifetime of hard work and accomplishment. Cicero was a novus homo, a “new man.” He had no illustrious forebears, so from obscure beginnings he had to earn a name for himself using his own wiles and wits. For modern Westerners, and especially Americans raised on the Horatio Alger mythology, the enormity of what it then meant to be a novus homo is befuddling. But for the ancients, those without connections and ancestors who dared to strive were seen as grasping, venal creatures, destabilizing the natural order of things.

In The Aristocracy of Talent: How Meritocracy Made the Modern World, Adrian Wooldridge unfurls a pacy narrative that recreates this lost world of inheritance and patrimony subsequently pushed aside by the merciless sorting procedures of modern meritocracy. In the process, he highlights the universal benefits of the new order, where in the natural course of things, the competent ascend the ladder of success. But he also documents the system’s recent corruption, and addresses how we can recapture its original progressive spirit in the future.

Wooldridge is now 62, so he has seen the post-World War II meritocracy at the peak of its powers, and bemoans its calcification and eventual capture by oligarchs. It is no coincidence that someone who values merit has spent most of his career as a columnist for the Economist—a publication that manages to distill and perpetuate the essence of 19th-century British classical liberalism for which a society open to the talents of all was the holy grail. However, The Aristocracy of Talent offers more than a standard recapitulation of history, as it eventually shifts to diagnosing the illness of modern meritocracy. It ends with a prognosis, and the steps needed to restore meritocratic health.

Though an Anglo-American perspective suffuses The Aristocracy of Talent, Wooldridge makes an effort to reach deep into history and broaden his lens so that the narrative covers cultures beyond the modern West. In the process, he brings the insights of domains as diverse as evolutionary psychology, political philosophy, and psychometrics to bear on Plato’s republic, the Chinese imperial system, and the British civil service. Meritocracy is not a historically contingent phenomenon, but a human universal which has been rationalized and placed at the center of our contemporary value system. In the distant past, no doubt, our ancestors would have preferred that the best hunters focus on obtaining game, while those with weaker skills engage in other activities. Today, the meritocratic impulse is not so prosaic, as talent and competency are also important to our values.

The indispensable meritocratic patina obtains even for oligarchic dynasties for whom higher education adds little direct value. Jared Kushner is heir to a multi-billion-dollar fortune, but his father nevertheless purchased a seat for him at Harvard University with a strategic donation. All the world’s wealth and breeding do not automatically confer the imprimatur of merit that matriculation at Harvard does. Though by all accounts, Kushner is an intellectual mediocrity, his Harvard degree gives him a glamor imparted from the institution, that in turn obtains its reputation from the ranks of bright young men and women of more modest means who aspire to be peers with the country’s best. In ancient Rome, a glorious lineage was sufficient to embark on a public career, but in the contemporary US, a degree from a prestigious university is arguably just as important.

In 2021, a book with the subtitle “How Meritocracy Made the Modern World” might be expected to peddle the idea that merit is a recent invention, but Wooldridge, who has a PhD in philosophy from Oxford, goes back to the source, fleshing out the political ideas espoused by Plato in The Republic. Plato’s vision for a republic ruled by merit has been alternatively labeled utopian and fascistic, but the depth and detail of that vision, in which a small competent elite chosen for their talent and virtue rule over the masses, has shaped Western civilization from its inception. Even though Athens was dominated by the will of the democratic citizenry, while Rome’s republic was guided by the interests of great patrician families, the seeds of technocratic meritocracy always existed as a counter-culture, beginning with Plato and continuing down through the ages. The vision in The Republic resurfaced in societies as varied as Elizabethan England, where Thomas More’s Utopia was a latter-day descendent of the original republic, and contemporary Iran, where Ayatollah Khomeini explicitly modeled the Guardian Council on Plato’s philosopher-kings.

And just as meritocracy’s origins were primal, so its appeal was also widespread. Between the Han Dynasty 2,000 years ago and the Song Dynasty 1,000 years ago, the Chinese perfected a meritocratic bureaucracy that obviated the need for a hereditary nobility. Consisting of original commentaries on the humanistic canon befitting a literary gentleman, the Chinese Imperial examinations continued until 1905, resurrected by every new ruling regime. So ubiquitous was the figure of the scholar-bureaucrat in Chinese culture that a whole genre of fiction emerged depicting the romance between a youthful examination candidate and a local beauty. And yet the flipside of the pressure-cooker of Chinese meritocracy was the opportunity cost of men devoting decades to passing exams that most would fail repeatedly. In the 19th century, the Taiping Rebellion, which killed millions, was triggered by a failed examination candidate’s nervous breakdown.

While the ancient Western vision of meritocracy was theoretical and philosophical, and the Chinese vision was functional and pragmatic, the third precedent, that of the Jews, was religious and theological. Though many religions fixate upon a core number of beliefs and major rituals, Judaism evolved into a legalistic faith that extended the 613 commandments handed down from God to the ancient Hebrews into all aspects of life. A tradition of Jewish religious commentary emerged 2,000 years ago whereby rabbis entered into competition with one another, to test their erudition and cleverness in interpreting the Bible. This dynamic process resulted in the Talmud, a set of commentaries that in bound form totals nearly 100 volumes. For much of the last 2,000 years, this intellectual subculture did not make waves outside the ghettos of Europe, but with the Jewish Enlightenment and emancipation in the 19th century, Jews broke into broader public life, and began to dominate numerous professions and fields. Wooldridge documents this impressive record of Jewish achievement, which includes over 20 percent of Nobel Prize winners, and the attempt by gentile elites to prevent Jewish advancement through quotas and explicit discrimination.

Meanwhile, Western societies finally embraced meritocracy whole-heartedly in the 19th century. Whereas earlier generations of university students at Oxford and Cambridge were exclusively the well-heeled sons of the landed nobility, in the 1800s, slots were opened for students with fewer connections and more talent. The Aristocracy of Talent tells of an older generation of Oxford dons who simply held sinecures, producing little in the way of scholarship or mentorship. This was the case throughout the British military and civil service as well, where expenditures were allotted to support the younger sons of privileged elites with connections, who had little to offer the Empire by way of talent, and who lived off the state as a parasitic class. The world before 1800 was defined by hereditary privilege, and the elites were shameless about the dynastic principle. To rule was their right, and the offices of state were their expectation. But war’s competitive pressures between European nation-states ensured that talented officers selected on merit would always beat gentry leaders who purchased their commissions through connections. The near-miss of the 1857 rebellion against the British in India brought home to the ruling caste of the Empire that employing layabouts and wastrels was a luxury they could no longer afford. Instead, the Empire quickly pivoted to deploying bright, classically educated men of the day who could competently and effectively rule a vast territory of hundreds of millions at minimum expense.

If Europeans—from the British civil service in India to the Napoleonic French officer corps—accepted meritocracy under cruel necessity, America’s aversion to heredity was part of its revolutionary inheritance. The US Constitution prohibits any person holding a government office from accepting title from any “King, Prince, or foreign State.” Though some early Founding Fathers, like Alexander Hamilton, were sympathetic to the aristocratic principle (of course, Hamilton himself was a novus homo), the election of Andrew Jackson in 1828 established democratic-populism as the dominant ethos of the American republic. Despite the Jackson administration’s reputation for corruption and graft, Wooldridge notes that its openness to outsiders meant that it expanded the pool of the ruling class far beyond the small number of elite north-eastern families preferred by the Federalist party. Though a fully professionalized civil service would only come to full fruition with the progressive era in the early 20th century, Jackson’s rejection of the hereditary principle and known connections opened the door through which pure meritocracy would eventually step.

The 20th century is rightfully called the American century, as the powers of Europe tore themselves apart in two World Wars and the Soviet Union’s vision of worldwide Communism lost the clash of ideologies. But it was arguably also the century of meritocracy, as America’s emphasis on ingenuity, hard work, and individual initiative propelled it to become the technological and economic vanguard by the mid-20th century. Whereas the ancient Romans viewed a novus homo with suspicion, and Napoleon rightly understood that his parvenu status meant he would always be excluded from the club of European monarchs, in America self-made men were seen to be superior specimens to the scions of dynastic power. The existence of Gilded-Age dynasties like the Astors and Vanderbilts flew in the face of the ideal, which valorized individual new men like Andrew Carnegie, the self-made mogul, born the son of a modest weaver.

Wooldridge outlines how, in the decades after World War II, America’s institutions of excellence threw open their doors to any and all with talent, from Jews to women, and so transformed themselves into supercharged engines of upward mobility. George W. Bush matriculated at Yale in 1964, while his younger brother, Jeb, attended the University of Texas starting in 1971. The difference between the two young men did not reflect their native talent, but the shift to a stricter academic criteria at Yale in the late 1960s. While universities rolled out the red carpet for bright students of all kinds, the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 allowed the promise of America to be realized for people from all over the world who had previously been shut out. Whereas the 1924 Immigration Act attempted to maintain the ethnic balance of the US at the time, biased as it was towards north-west Europeans, the 1965 legislation encouraged the migration of vast numbers of individuals from Asia and Africa. It included clauses that prioritized those with critical skills, so that 52 percent of start-ups in Silicon Valley are now co-founded by an immigrant.

But Wooldridge warns that in the last few decades, orthodoxy of merit has been assailed from multiple directions even in the US. The 1965 wave of immigration resulted in a massive increase in the US’s Asian population, and the flooding of its elite institutions with their children. Fear of demographic imbalance has led institutions to impose disparate standards to reduce the number of ethnic Asian admittees, policies that are strikingly reminiscent of the Jewish quotas of the 1920s. The rationales in 21st-century America for these Asian quotas are often left-wing. Administrators steeped in Critical Race Theory take a dim view of the possibilities of meritocracy, and through some contorted logic view Asian success as a symptom of white supremacy, to be stamped out. From the standpoint of admissions officers, the systems and institutions of 20th-century America were not open and fair, but systematically biased to reinforce status hierarchies. Over-representation of particular groups reveals the effects of that bias, not hard work. Meanwhile, the Varsity Blues admissions scandal exposed wealthy families trying to purchase slots for their children at elite institutions, attempting to scoop up some of the glamor that super-wealthy students, like Jared Kushner, take for granted. Sub-elite lineages operating on dynastic logic attempt to co-opt and parasitize the meritocracy rather than nakedly undermine its legitimacy.

Meanwhile, Wooldridge observes that much of the American public has become detached from and hostile to elite meritocratic institutions, particularly academia. Working-class Americans who have never been near the meritocratic ladder feel oppressed by the cultural changes wrought by the intelligentsia, and targeted for ridicule by those with credentials they lack. In the United Kingdom, to the shock of the media and political elite, citizens voted to leave the European Union beloved by the professional-managerial class. But the Brexit vote was just the denouement of the British working class’s long alienation from the urbane cosmopolitans of London. Far from a means of upward mobility and competence, they see meritocratic institutions as elitist vehicles intent on imposing their solutions from on high. While the American system balanced meritocratic technocracy and popular democracy in the past, today its populist democratic energies have been unleashed against the attempts by the technocracy to impose its will by fiat. The rise to power of Donald Trump and Boris Johnson reflects populist anger in the Anglo-American world. Though both Trump and Johnson are sons of privilege, with the former inheriting great wealth and the latter attaining stupendous academic success, they affect an air of buffoonery often necessary for aspirant populists from the upper classes.

Is meritocracy, then, a legacy of the 20th century, set to slowly wither in the 21st? The Aristocracy of Talent is rich with the evidence of incredible yields from the meritocratic project. The modern world’s professional class is an outcome of the meritocracy, as are the rule of law and the global order. Gains from free trade and free movement of capital have enriched all. But the turn against meritocracy has as much to do with the transformation of meritocrats into rational agents lacking virtue and moral balance. The Left’s critique of elite universities has bite when you consider that Harvard and other prestigious institutions have become hedge funds attached to nonprofits, investing as much time and energy in their endowments as they do in educating their undergraduate student bodies. The fact that a Harvard degree confers status, rather than a badge of virtue, means it is less ridiculous when someone like Jared Kushner waltzes onto campus. One can debate whether an oligarch’s son has the academic chops, but rarely would anyone argue that their presence graces the campus with more virtue. As it is, Kushner has the wealth that many Harvard students routinely aspire to obtain when they leave campus to become McKinsey management consultants and investment bankers.

Wooldridge argues that meritocracy can only survive if it is infused with an ethos that prioritizes virtue, applying talent to ends that ennoble rather than enrich. This insight is not original to The Aristocracy of Talent; to wit, Adam Smith penned The Theory of Moral Sentiments 15 years before An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. Smith’s view of rational capitalism, maximizing the wealth of all, was always understood in the context of ethics and morality, something moderns too often forget. The same reality applied to the Chinese meritocratic system, where success occurred through study and commentary on treatises, the focus of which was virtue and propriety. Like the British civil servants of the 19th century, Chinese bureaucrats were educated in the humanities, and well understood that their power was but a means to an end, enabling the “good life” for the greatest number.

Nineteenth-century meritocracy succeeded because the competition between nation states tested various forms of governance, and the utility of having competent soldiers and bureaucrats was argument enough for Europe’s rulers. But after a century of rule by technocrats, the novelty of argument from efficiency has faded. Too often meritocrats are seen as ruthlessly selfish, focusing on their own interests rather than putting their skills at the service of the body politic. The 21st century requires a rediscovery of meritocracy as an ethos, rather than a prosaic career ladder and a set of checkboxes. Wooldridge reminds us that life is not just hoops through which we must jump to win accolades. Talents are gifts that must serve society, and with the privilege to rule comes responsibility.


This is a companion discussion topic for the original entry at https://quillette.com/2021/12/14/the-aristocracy-of-talent-a-review/
1 Like

I would like to differentiate between the Aristocracy of Anybodies, the Hamiltons, Rockefellers, Carnegies, Jobses, and Musks, and the Aristocracy of Somebodies, the approved talent from the Chinese, British, and our selective college system.

I notice that our liberal friends are all horrified by the selection of Elon Musk as Time Magazine’s Person of the Year.

3 Likes

A good essay. However, I think we have it question which form meritocracy should take. Is it the meritocracy where so many are unable to contend and the prize always goes to the man who ruthlessly grasps the nettle of cost-cutting, automation and efficiency, or is it the supposed moral ascendency of the patrician class as a purveyor of bread and circuses, in which our benevolent gods bestow prescriptive gifts from on high- just as likely to cripple, as to heal the ailing?

Both systems have their limitations and benefits. They also feed from each others tails. Parents desperate about the indolence of their own condition willingly submit their children to the stricter education and hard work of academies which pursue a scientific understanding of the way we learn and develop. Meanwhile, although competition in general is an unalloyed good, many a fifty year old man has found himself cast onto the scrapheap of personal obsolescence only to be replaced by a younger, fitter model and forced to rely upon the demeaning handouts of the state, for the simple reason that the market isn’t friendly to those whose bones ands sinews have weakened with age.

I would submit that both Care and Ruthless Aspiration are entire necessary to a functional society. After all, much as we might simply want our children to be happy, if we could somehow place them under the charge of a mentor who could make the best of their future, wouldn’t we eagerly pay exorbitant fees? That was what universities were originally supposed to be all about, before they became hopelessly corrupted by the unconstrained Care ideology, in which all who participate are winners- regardless of individual merit. It’s also why so many are now beginning to question the value of a university education, especially when there is now so much high quality information available online, for those who know how to panhandle the algorithm with sufficiently precise terminology.

There are, however, virtues which are overlooked and undervalued by both these great titans of ideology. The blue collar worker is far more aware of his own limitations than any future boss, and will eagerly submit his unqualified loyalty to the man who is reciprocal, grateful for their labours, fair and willing to fight their corner, when warranted. There is also an extent to which the highly intelligent can learn to structuralise problems and provide those they champion with the tools they need to contend with the managerial elite- like gladiators armed with the god-forged weapons of multicoloured highlighter pens and up-to-date tracking reports, contending with mighty ogres of intellect who are convinced the lesser mortals haven’t done their daily turn at the wheel.

Because, in the final analysis, a honed and precise intellect can confer their intelligence downwards- through the provision of armour and weapons which they themselves barely understand until their benefits are seen in a pragmatic and practical sense. If not glory, then they can earn the unqualified esteem of those who long ago learned to stomach the hateful gruel of lesser achievement. In mentoring, they can help those whose talents were long overlooked to rise.

But in our hubris and vanity, we have forgotten those virtues which were once hard-won on the battlefields of Europe and beyond- the grace which came from the younger officer class being forced to shed their blood with those once considered beneath them. War may have been a medicine of the worst kind, but at least in its aftermath, it taught men to respect each other across the gaping of class and supposed superiority, it taught those who considered themselves to be meritorious and deserving of the laurels of wealth to be more mindful of their men’s dignity, wages and advancement.

The third system is not perfect. It operates solely within the purviews of the constrained vision. Not all have the capacity to rise, opportunities are precious and rare, and many of those you choose to champion and mentor will fall by the wayside, or take the chance for granted. But it lacks both the insipid weakness generated by a patrician class who offer the sweet medicine of demeaning indolence to the point of gluttony, as well as the sheer vacuous arrogance of a managerial elite who are convinced only they work hard, or would make a virtue of ruthlessness alone.

As usual, my essays are to be found on my Substack, which is free to view and comment:

6 Likes

Governments, if they endure, always tend increasingly toward aristocratic forms. No government in history has been known to evade this pattern. And as the aristocracy develops, government tends more and more to act exclusively in the interests of the ruling class - whether that class be hereditary royalty, oligarchs of financial empires or entrenched bureaucracy.

Politics as Repeat Phenomenon:
Bene Gesserit Training Manual

PS: The author certainly has a thing for Jared Kushner.

7 Likes

Interesting review. I would just point out one thing:

Meanwhile, Wooldridge observes that much of the American public has become detached from and hostile to elite meritocratic institutions, particularly academia. Working-class Americans who have never been near the meritocratic ladder feel oppressed by the cultural changes wrought by the intelligentsia, and targeted for ridicule by those with credentials they lack.

It isn’t just that. Part of the issue is that these institutions don’t seem to really believe in meritocracy anymore. As was noted just a paragraph earlier, “fear of demographic imbalance has led institutions to impose disparate standards to reduce the number of ethnic Asian admittees” and “and through some contorted logic view Asian success as a symptom of white supremacy.” Hypocrisy of this kind is simply off putting to those outside the gated institutions (to borrow from Eric Weinstein). They want the benefits of status conferred by meritocracy, but they constantly cheat at actually being meritocratic. When that cheating had to do with football or basketball players or the children of wealthy alumni, that seemed like an innocent sort of self-serving corruption, whereas the racialized admission standards of today, with different test score ranges for different skin tones, seems somehow more malevolent, if for no other reason than these things can be gamed a lot easier. It’s a lot easier to fool Harvard into thinking you’re half Samoan than to fool them into thinking you’re a good power forward.

There’s also the issue of how these institutions have come to promote ideological uniformity in the past 20-30 years, which has created a public perception of these institutions as serving as a filter, preventing anyone who doesn’t hold the "correct opinions " on various topics from becoming part of the ruling class. Note that this is in effect another departure from meritocracy, as there are lots of talented people out there who don’t hew to current orthodoxies. As a matter of fact, I would almost be willing to argue that some contemporary orthodoxies are so at odds with reality that what’s really being selected for in our elite institutions is conformity, cowardice, and a kind of compartmentalized stupidity.

8 Likes

In other words:
“it’s perfectly fine to maintain a system undermining merit that overwhelmingly favours white people but not one that gives a leg up for a comparatively minuscule number of people of colour.”
“Structural racism? What structural racism?“.
And then you wonder why CRT is being rammed down every ones throats…

Actually the logic they use is simple - not contorted. Just use the handy term “white adjacent” - as in “Asians are white adjacent”.

Some of these terms are deceptively simple to understand. It’s easy to understand the idea of “white adjacent”. The idea slips on in, or slips on by, so easily, that it’s hard, in the context of a discussion or argument, to make the point that the speaker is contradicting the premise that “people of color are discriminated against by systemic racism”. Really they’re just kind of getting out of the fact that they’re redefining Asians as no longer “people of color.”

If you were to halt the speaker with the challenge: “Hold up a minute. Are you saying that Asians are not people of color?”, I can see how you could get called racist. After all you’re focusing on (“obsessing over”?) race. Or maybe you’d be criticizing for thinking in terms of logical categories et cetera - in other words thinking like a “privileged cis white male”. Or if you’re brown or black they could call you a biscuit or an Oreo cookie.

I’ve been thinking about the various kinds of errors that people can make, especially educated ones. Coming up with definitions like this, and using them like this, is one. Your average guy in the street (meaning, all my neighbors - it’s rural/forested where I live) has probably never heard the term “white adjacent”.

Oh, and by the way:

From what I can tell, a great fear of today’s elite (meaning, both members of the managerial-technocratic elite and also “old money” or “established power”), is that they, or more particularly their offspring/descendants, will fall down into the middle class. Or, God forbid, the lower/working/struggling class. They see and know well the struggles people in the lower classes have to face, day to day and year to year.

“Regression from the mean” and also just the vagaries of life and fortune when you look at time periods of several decades, mean that in a pure meritocracy, there’s going to be quite a lot of falling off from the peak, falling out of the top tier.

We’ll never see a day when people who are comfortable, are happy with or accept the prospect of falling into a harder life. I certainly don’t want myself, nor anyone from my family, to be miserable.

Any more thoughts I have on the topic are not original. For that matter I don’t suppose any of the ones I wrote above are particularly original. :slight_smile:

/ramble

6 Likes

Ella, you simple, simple lady. In what dark corner of the universe do you reside where creating lax standards for athletics favors white people? Are you aware of what the NBA and NFL are? Tell me: what are the demographics of the players in those leagues?

5 Likes

Eli, you simple, simple …
The country club sports of rowing, la crosse, sailing et al that white’s are more ‘talented’ at are the lottery ticket to elite colleges…

That’s possibly so, but you’re confused again. That’s okay, though, because I’m here to explain it to you: in the old days, when the Ivies were the finishing schools for the Wasp elite, as discussed in the article, there was in fact real systemic discrimination. There were of course very real double standards for the children of high profile alums, most of whom were white, but the discerning student of history will recognize that this wasn’t about race so much as it was about class, because while nearly all minority groups were excluded from these institutions, so were nearly all white people. I’m not sure if there were serious double-standards in existence in those days re: athletics, but if there were, I suspect it was mainly about carving out admission slots for people with more money than their kids had brains. This is perhaps not so much admirable as it is understandable, because who doesn’t like money? But excuse me if I don’t get morally outraged about institutions that had long been about perpetuating socio-economic status and privilege for a narrow slice of WASPs had particular policies that aided specific wealthy WASP scions 50 years ago. To this non-WASP, it is not particularly compelling.

These days, however, the situation is much different, and double standards for athletes are one tool that is likely used on average to help balance admissions to promote a more racially diverse student body at elite institutions and prevent the Asians from taking over completely. Since you’re in favor of this, I don’t see what you have to complain about. I am not, so my complaint stands.

6 Likes

The motivation is irrelevant though if a particular race loses out regardless of intention. Just ask Asians whose grievances pertain to all admissions that aren’t purely academic. After all it’s not affirmative action admissions that are the biggest influence to theirs.

You’re here to misunderstand me & pragmatism.

Ah no. It’s no coincidence or secret that the types of sporting admissions the ivies like to favour also happen to be another donor source just like legacies are more likely to donate.

Ah no, again. It’s this kind of simplistic absolutist thinking that gets in the way of understanding complex realities. My preference is actually maintaining the status quo of the current situation of AA & athlete/donor/ legacy admits. I don’t really see how these institutions can survive other wise. The standards of such institutions rely on endowments which not only substantially fund them but also scholarships for the those from lower socio economic backgrounds.

And if your’e going to have an admission process that clearly favours whites then it’s probably in conflict with the 14th amendment not to have some other policy to counter that for people of colour. But this ‘arrangement’ is problematic for Asians who mark my words will not be satisfied if AA is struck down because their problem still remains which is a catch 22 because this ‘problem’ is a substantial source of funding. But is this process really discriminatory to asians when their subsequent generations will have access to legacy admissions? Let sleeping dogs lie is the lesser of evils…

Phony meritocracy, phony capitalism, phony SJ (see ‘The Liar’s Club’), phony patriotism. Anything real?

It doesn’t tho. For the past several decades it has overwhelmingly favored POC (except Asians, they’re white now), specifically American born blacks. Indian Asians will soon be white too, since they can and do compete on merit – which makes one white.

I don’t think you and Eli really disagree – both rich brats and POC are favored by the ‘sports’ scam. The rich brat joins the sailing club, the illiterate POC is on the basketball team. Both are cash cows tho in very different ways.

The cure for double standards and hypocrisy is not an equal and opposite double standard but rather removing the initial problem. Personally I’d say that if Jared K’s daddy wants to buy him a place a Harvard, that’s fine, but let’s be honest about it. The money could be well spent on bursaries for the less wealthy. Has anyone considered what being honest might accomplish? The truth is now buried under so many layers of lies that people forget where they put it.

7 Likes

If you are referring to admissions to elite colleges not based solely on SAT scores that’s incorrect. The numbers of whites who are sporting, legacy or donors admits are overwhelmingly higher than AA admits as shown in the Harvard V SFFA court case.

The relevant difference being one group gets powerful jobs than run society via their sporting achievements.

But you are still lying to yourself here because it’s a subjective value you are using to justify the ends. The benefits of diversity & desegregation could just as easily be a worthy end.

The reality is sometimes there are no purely ethical choices that require a softening of principles in certain situations. But I think the lens used to identify unethical choices is flawed here & has dangerous implications. These admissions either way aren’t made purely on the basis of skin colour or because of a perceived inferiority or superiority but rather a laudable benefit that’s of service to society. What’s next every time an organisation makes an employment choice that furthers its goals through the benefits it receives from that choice is the demographic that’s left out ‘discriminated’ against? This is discrimination gone mad & It’s one of the main reasons I don’t support the Asian Americans suing Harvard.

Remember, commenters, when @Ella-B makes pronouncements about societal benefit, it’s not subjective!

3 Likes

This is true. A great many people highly value a racially segregated society…

As I said, I think it’s all dishonest. I don’t take sides whether the pot is blacker than the kettle.

We all thought so at one time. But things have gone sideways. People can disagree about it tho. Some really believe the cure for past discrimination is more discrimination but I disagree. The way to get past race is to get past race.

It’s one of the reasons I do. Firstly there’s been the lying. The Ivys should be honest about their anti-Asian discrimination. Second, Asians demonstrate how very easy it is to get past whitey’s discrimination if you want to. Ben Carson agrees.

2 Likes

But it’s not. They will eventually have access to legacy benefits. And could do as Ben Carson suggests: use their boot straps. IE rather than spending all their time studying they could brush up on their country club sports….

Cheeky girl.

1 Like

You chaps and chapettes are having a grand old time arguing about Ivies and Race, so I think it’s time I interjected.

Universities have always been creatures of the ruling class. Back in the day the Brit universities were performing the vital task of educating young ruling-class sprouts for the state church. Then the Germans invented the research university as a good way to teach the French a lesson. In our day the universities are pathetic tools of our cratering ruling class.

Don’t forget that George Eliot’s heroine Mary Garth thought nothing of Fred Vincy’s Oxbridge education. She just wanted him to get a job. I wonder what My Girl Mary-Ann Evans meant by that. Perhaps, as the most intelligent and educated woman in England in her day, she is telling us that somehow she managed without a university education.

Now, as a profound racist I say that I am on the side of the East Asians, and very suspicious of the South Asians because of their systemic caste-ism and the over-abundance of Brahmins among them. As for legacy whites and their poncey sports, to heck with them; their day is done.

4 Likes