Merit Over Identity
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
I start from the following proposition: being female is not an accomplishment. My being female should play no role in my being hired for a job. Of course, my sex undoubtedly has made me the target of sex preferences on numerous occasions, thus casting doubt on any actual qualifications I might presume to possess.
My being female should be particularly irrelevant in a university. Until recently, universities were dedicated to the Enlightenment ideal of universal knowledge. A male Chinese engineer and a female Nigerian engineer may have no spoken language in common, but they can communicate through the universal languages of mathematics and physics. Whether the buildings they erect stand or fall depends not on their nationality or sex but on their mastery of engineering principles.
I will go further. Being black, gay, or gender-fluid are also not accomplishments, and should have nothing to do with faculty hiring or student admissions. The only thing that should matter when, say, a medical school hires a researcher in pancreatic cancer is whether that oncologist is the best in his field.
The diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) bureaucracy is the nemesis of the Enlightenment ideal of knowledge. It puts relentless pressure on every academic department to hire on the basis of race and sex, not on the basis of intellectual achievement. Every faculty search today is a desperate effort to find even remotely qualified minority or female candidates. Being female or a non-Asian minority confers an enormous advantage in the hiring and tenure process.
Yet despite this obsessive attention to diversity, many departments still do not pass the DEI proportionality test. So DEI bureaucrats are on a crusade to extirpate the sources of bias that allegedly stand in the way of proportional representation. Every colorblind objective test of academic skills—SAT, LSAT, or MCAT—is under attack as racist and is going down.
Consider Step One of the United States Medical Licensing Exam, which tests students’ knowledge of basic physiological processes. Step One changed to a pass-fail grading system last year because black and Hispanic students disproportionately got low scores, impeding their ability to land the residency of their choice. Whether the students who will now squeak by with a pass are the most qualified candidates for those residencies is of no interest to the gatekeepers.
Scientific institutions are now reformulating research priorities to increase the diversity of federal grant recipients. The National Institutes of Health has shifted funding from basic science to research on health disparities and racism simply because black scientists do more research on these race topics and less on pure science.
Reality check: the reason why colleges are not proportionally diverse has nothing to do with bias or exclusion. The reason is large racial differences in academic skills. This is an uncomfortable subject, and one that is taboo on college campuses, but if we are going to indict American universities and other institutions for systemic racism, we should get our facts straight.
In 2019, according to the National Assessment of Educational Progress, 66 percent of black twelfth-graders did not possess even partial mastery of basic twelfth-grade math skills, such as being able to perform arithmetical calculations or to recognize a linear function on a graph. Only 7 percent of black twelfth-graders were competent on those basic twelfth-grade math skills, and the number who were advanced was too small to show up statistically. The picture was not much better in reading.
In 2021, the American College Testing organization rated only 10 percent of black high school seniors as college ready, based on their combined math, general science, and reading scores on the ACT. Whites were five times as likely to be college ready.
These gaps do not subsequently close in college but are replicated in every graduate measure of academic skills. They mean that, at present, you can have diversity, or you can have meritocracy. You cannot have both. It is mathematically impossible to produce 13 percent black representation in chemistry, nuclear biology, or medicine, say, without lowering meritocratic standards.
Of course, there are many individuals from underrepresented groups who meet existing standards. Far from being discriminated against, however, they are treated like “gold dust,” as an astrophysicist in the University of California told me.
Thanks to DEI ideology, we are opting for diversity over meritocracy. Indeed, diversity is simply a code word for preferences. But those preferences do not do their alleged beneficiaries any favors.
If MIT admitted me for the sake of gender diversity and I had a 600 on my math SAT while most of my nonpreferred peers had close to a perfect 800, I would struggle in, if not fail, my math classes, because the teaching would be pitched to the class average. I would likely have done perfectly well, however, at a school where my peers matched my own level of academic preparation.
So, too, for the recipients of race preferences. They would be academically competitive in colleges where their qualifications matched those of their peers, but when they are catapulted into schools for which they are not prepared, they struggle, as numerous studies have documented. Racial-preference beneficiaries intending to major in STEM are far more likely to switch out of their intended major than their nonpreferred peers. The DEI bureaucracy then informs them that their academic difficulties are the result of their school’s systemic racism. The solution to their struggles is of course to increase the size and power of the diversity bureaucracy.
Indeed, we are witnessing at this very moment a great institutional mitosis, as existing DEI bureaucracies spawn identical bureaucracies. These latter go under a new name, however: “offices of belonging.” If you thought that “inclusion” encompassed belonging, you underestimate DEI’s fecundity in generating new sinecures.
A university’s task is the pursuit of truth. The DEI bureaucracy, however, is founded on a lie—one that teaches students to think of themselves as victims and to see racism where none exists. It is iatrogenic, creating through racial preferences the very divisions and discomfort that it purports to solve, in an endless, vicious circle.
By all means, let us redouble our efforts to make sure that all children are prepared to succeed, by focusing on a child’s earliest years. Campus diversity bureaucrats have nothing to contribute to that effort. They do, however, suck up vast sums of money, narrow the acceptable range of discourse, and force the adoption of double standards of achievement.
The university should embrace a single colorblind definition of excellence. It will only do so, however, by eliminating DEI fiefdoms and by replacing identity with merit as the touchstone of academic accomplishment.
Tags
Who is online
492 visitors
If you ever pick a young doctor from an elite school, pick an Asian male. He has to be the best of the best to get where he did.
You obviously have never been to Hopkins, where Asians make up a disproportional majority of the school.
Your comment just comes off as ugly.
Exactly, wherever possible, I pick Black females because they they have overcome the most obstacles. Plus, I prefer the thinner fingers for my urologist.
Remember when the complaint was Jews were over represented in med schools?
Actually, I remember when Jews were not allowed into med schools or any of our Ivy League schools. That was why Brandeis was started.
Don't we all?
"-preference beneficiaries intending to major in STEM are far more likely to switch out of their intended major than their nonpreferred peers. The DEI bureaucracy then informs them that their academic difficulties are the result of their school’s systemic racism. The solution to their struggles is of course to increase the size and power of the diversity bureaucracy"
Hopefully, future employers should be aware of this scam being perpetuated by DEI nitwits, but I wouldn't count on it..
My cardiologist is an Asian male with a medical degree from Stanford and an advanced degree from Harvard. I guess I'll live forever.
Can't go wrong with an Asian American.
The seed is from a debate, the other side can be found at:
First of all, I have to admit that I needed to look up the words "fecundity" and "sinecures" as I am rarely presented with the need to use those words conversationally. The education system did not fail me, I was able to self-educate or overcome my sub-par vocabulary, as can everyone else regardless of race, color, or gender preference.
Generally speaking I tend toward meritocracy as the mechanism through which one should navigate the higher education system (students and faculty), if the goal is to advance the best of the best and remain competitive with the rest of the world, particularly in fields increasingly requiring science and technology. Objective tests and grading systems can be a good measure of academic skills to the extent that they are available to all equally, including the preparation resources for them. To the extent that this is done and the playing field is level, how can they be racist? There is no structural reason why people of color cannot pass such a test at the same rate as white people, and to claim otherwise seems to me to be racist in itself.
Suggesting or insisting that just about every failure to meet inclusion, diversity or equity quotas boils down to structural or systemic racism sounds self-defeating to me. It seems to me that it removes the drive to look inward and persevere (which we know by countless examples can be done to achieve success) and replaces it with a much easier scapegoat or someone/something else to blame. I don't feel that is helpful if the focus is to help advance those with the drive to be the best of the best. Just my current opinion based on my own personal observations, and I'm completely open to changing my viewpoint if another argument is more compelling.
Well said
The assumption is that they have all been repaired equally, which I know as a fact, they have not. That being said, I am conflicted since I do believe we should strive for excellence, but I am not sure at what cost.
Perrie can you please expand on what you mean by this? What are the facts indicating that people are not prepared equally for these tests? The why they might not be equally prepared is important in this discussion, would you agree? And I assume we are talking both about student aptitude/college entry testing as well as college faculty qualification/employment testing here?
I'll assume that ''repaired'' should be prepared. IMO, the preparation begins in grade school on through high school and that would be the quality of the school that the person attends. Since property taxes are one of the major contributors to the functioning of a school, Being from a well-off area vs a less than well-off or poor area the quality of a school in a wealthy area will have advantages that those from a poor area do not have plus the parents in the wealthy school district will contribute in various ways to the school that the parents from a poor area cannot.
All things being equal or as the saying goes, a level playing field for all does not in most cases exist. If we, as a country, could figure out a way that all pre-schools and K-12 were equal in all respects that, IMO would certainly help create an equal playing field.
I'm always struck by how there is a backlash on the AA that schools apply in varying degrees to their admittance requirements. From a historical perspective, students of color were not accepted nor welcomed into higher education which began to change in the 50s and 60s and 70s time frames that I am well acquainted with.
I don't believe that we are blaming anyone but pointing out the fact that they are inequities and how those inequities are handled is the crux of the debate. From a nonminority perspective, you'll get an opinion but what I've seen seems to be the only perspective that voices their opinion. One might actually ask and listen to a minority person (student) as to their thoughts and perception on the matter.
JMO
When I was a teacher in the NYC schools, there were many ways that the poorer districts were cheated.
I could go on, but I think just these are some good examples.
First of all, I'd like to thank you and all teachers for your service as an educator of our young. A very important and challenging job as you well know!
Even the SAT, LSAT, or MCAT tests? My understanding is that these tests are very standardized and aimed purely at determining scholastic achievement or aptitude. Those of course are the tests that speak directly to the issue of access to higher education which of course is the topic here. From the faculty side there are also employer/university standardized applications/tests for employment of those best qualified on the basis of such tests or applications.
The remainder of the examples you listed sound like excellent reasons to support school choice programs that are open to ALL students. This could give parents the ability to make the best choice for their kids to attend the better performing schools. To instill the desire to become the best of the best, it seems to me that access to the best schools would be a logical prerequisite. Aside from a robust and accessible school choice program, what do you feel are solutions to the issues you listed?
We have been directing an ever increasing amount of money toward public schools on a per pupil basis from local, state and federal sources for decades but it is unclear as to how much this is improving the situation. We spent an average of $751/student in 1970, to a whopping $13,190/student in 2019 ($25,000/student in New York!) on just public K-12 schools . Where the local dollars are lacking, state and Federal sources have been required to fill in the gaps, but still to no avail. Most recent studies indicate that how the money is allocated in a given district or school is more important than how much. How much more money do you feel is needed to "fix" these problems?
Indeed, good point, and I have, but I could certainly endeavor to hear more. That is one reason why I am here now seeking further input and discussion.
I won't attempt to speak for all minorities but for the one that I'm from which is American Indian, although many of the problem areas are relevant in most minority groups.
The US government is responsible for education on Indian reservations and is overseen by the BIE (Bureau of Indian Education) which is underfunded, understaffed, and more of a warehousing operation than a teaching environment. Here is a link that will give you a better idea of what is transpiring with education on reservation.
Many parents are now sending their kids to local schools which is difficult since there are usually long distances involved and transportation issues. Many times Indian kids are subject to discrimination in these schools.
Another thing is that parents have to overcome the horrifying experience that existed for Indian kids from the late 1800s through the 1980s, The Indian Boarding Schools. Which is a subject all to itself.
Around 25% of all Indians live on reservations. So it is a substantial number of children that are not getting the support that they need.
Many of the Indian kids that live off reservation live in poor neighborhoods and of course are subject to the lack of funds that are enjoyed by other communities. Many of the schools have been taken over by the various tribes and have been certified for the state that they are located in which has been a boom to the kids as they are much better educated and have a better chance at going on to college.
That's good for a start and we can discuss more if you are so inclined.
Thank you for the info Kavika and I certainly agree that schools overseen by the BIE had long been overlooked when it comes to requests for proper funding. Requests for funding had been delayed for far longer than they should have been.
In the case of the the Little Singer Community K-6 School in Arizona, featured in the 2014 article to which you linked, looks like their school was finally funded and rebuilt and modernized in 2020 as indicated in this Facebook post. .
Based on this FY 2023 report , looks like efforts to better organize and distribute funds and improve all of the BIE funded schools is well underway now and will hopefully be of great benefit to the tribes and their people as far as leveling the playing field in K-12 education and beyond.
I am especially glad to have read the following:
One of my main concerns in observing education at both the K-12 and post-secondary levels is the apparent decline in focus on math and science. We aren't cultivating as much interest in engineering and R&D as we need to be to keep pace with the rest of the world in science and technology. I love to see funds budgeted to spark more interest like this.
When I attended grade school and junior high school, there was a program here in California called Mentally Gifted Minors (MGM). From what I recall, the groups from my schools were quite diverse and we were periodically taken on trips to manufacturing facilities and research facilities in nearby colleges to gain an appreciation for various sciences and insight into how R&D works and how things are manufactured. We also had some trips to the tide pools along the coast and up to the mountains to learn about biological eco-systems and so forth. I recall sitting in on a couple leadership conferences as well. I think such programs can be highly beneficial if administered properly, but they disappeared into the ether. All that is left now are advanced placement (AP) classes that one can take in high-school, and those can be effective too. My daughter took so many AP courses in high-school that it significantly reduced her general education requirements in college.
I need to clear up the underfunded comment that I made, it is true in the sense that they are vastly underfunded but the BIE spends more per student than outside schools. That makes no sense at all with the state of the BIE schools. If I remember correctly GAO did a report on just that. And yes, the current administration has pushed improvement in BIE, IHS with new leadership, permanent funding and a great voice in decision making.
There is a big push by the tribes and Indian colleges to stress STEM courses. Dine (Navajo) College just last year graduated its first class with STEM degrees. The first NA woman in space a few months ago, Nicole Aunapu Mann. Col Mann is a Colonel in the Marine Corps with 47 combat missions under her belt and was a test pilot on the F 18 Hornet before becoming an astronaut.
Col. Mann along with retired Col. John Herrington (Native American) the first NA in space will serve as role models for Indian youth.
That is a shame and I do remember those programs from the decades that I lived in Cali.
Once again I totally get both sides, but do noy really see an equitable solution.