The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewJohn Derbyshire Archive
Ryan Zinke Was Right (Even If He Cucked): Meritocracy and Diversitocracy Incompatible
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
MeritocracyZinke

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

The picture above is from: Analysis: The White House releases a photo of its interns, and the Internet asks: Why so few people of color?, by Eugene Scott March 31, 2018.

Recently, I chewed over the concept of meritocracy some , by way of commemorating Michael Young’s introduction of the word fifty years ago this year.

Well, meritocracy’s been in the news again last week. On Tuesday CNN reported that Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke has said that in personnel matters, he will not focus on diversity. “What’s important,” they said he said, quote, “is having the right person for the right job,” In other words, the Secretary favors meritocracy, not diversitocracy.

Zinke seems to have cucked out once this hit the news. At any rate, a spokeswoman for his department says Zinke never said the things he’s alleged to have said. [ Interior Department Denies Ryan Zinke Told Staff ‘Diversity Isn’t Important’ By Hayley Miller, HuffPost, March 26, 2018 ]

Whatever: This is another little tremor from one of the main fault lines in modern society. Of course we want key positions in government departments to be staffed by the best available people. The problem is that the best methods we have for selecting the best people don’t deliver correct proportions of women, blacks, Latinos, homosexuals, disabled people, and so on.

Is there is something wrong with those selection methods? In the case of the old Civil Service exams, Jimmy Carter concluded that there must be, so he scrapped the exams for most Civil Service positions. Today, the federal government tells us, quote from their website:

The majority — approximately 80 percent — of federal government jobs are filled through a competitive examination of your background, work experience, and education, not through a written civil service test.

What does that phrase mean, “a competitive examination of your background, work experience, and education”? If there is no written test, how is it “a competitive examination” of anything?

What it means is that judgment of applicants is now “holistic.” That’s the preferred bureaucratic term, “holistic.”

What that means is that the hiring official glances through your records to make sure you have some relevant schooling and experience and are not a career criminal, then hires you or not by quota according to your race, sex, and so on.

This is not a totally contemptible approach. The heart of the matter here is fairness. Yes, we want the best people; but we also want Civil Service job applicants to be treated fairly.

The reason this approach is not totally contemptible is that we used not to treat people fairly in society at large. I add that qualifier because I doubt this applies to Civil Service hiring. I can’t see what was wrong with a written test for that.

ORDER IT NOW

In society at large, though, things were indubitably unfair until fifty years or so ago. It was hard for a woman to get qualified as a doctor or lawyer, much harder than for a man. Blacks were excluded from all sorts of zones by custom and by actual legislation.

Then we had a Fairness Revolution. Prestigious colleges opened their doors to women, racially discriminatory laws were struck down. For an entire generation now, American society has been as fair as it could possibly be.

There has in fact been a sort of over-shoot: More women than men now attend college, blacks have a raft of special preferences, privileges, and set-asides.

Perplexingly, though, outcomes are still unequal. There are still few women engineers; blacks still do badly at school; a homosexual man is more likely to be an interior decorator than a lumberjack (and conversely for a homosexual woman).

Our collective response to these persistently unequal outcomes is to invoke magic. Strange invisible forces and miasmas are preventing the attainment of identical statistical profiles by all groups: Institutional racism! Homophobia! Toxic masculinity!

These strange forces are the Dark Matter of contemporary social theory, or like the luminiferous ether of 19th-century physics. You can’t see, hear, taste, or touch them, but they must be there!

How, otherwise, could outcomes be so unequal after such efforts to attain fairness?

Well, they could be so because of innate group differences. Men on average are taller than women on average; Dutchmen on average are taller than Japanese on average. Why shouldn’t the same kinds of average differences show up in all heritable traits — a category that, we now know, includes everything we can measure about human personality, intelligence, and abilities? [See The Five Laws of Behavioral Genetics, By JayMan, Unz.com, August 4, 2017]

The evidence is now surely in, final and conclusive, that you can have proportional diversity of outcomes by group — by sex, race, and so on — or you can have meritocracy.

But you can’t have both.

So which do we want?

Until we make up our minds about that, all the fudging and lying and magical thinking that are exposed in episodes like the Ryan Zinke case will continue to plague us.

2010-12-24dl[1] John Derbyshire [email him] writes an incredible amount on all sorts of subjects for all kinds of outlets. (This no longer includes National Review, whose editors had some kind of tantrum and fired him. ) He is the author of We Are Doomed: Reclaiming Conservative Pessimism and several other books. He has had two books published by VDARE.com com:FROM THE DISSIDENT RIGHT (also available in Kindle) and FROM THE DISSIDENT RIGHT II: ESSAYS 2013.

(Republished from VDare by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Diversity, Meritocracy, Political Correctness 
The Meritocracy Series
Hide 18 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. There were guys named Ryan born before “Love Story”? Who’da thunk it?

    (Ryan is actually O’Neal’s second middle name.)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
    More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  2. Look at the bright side. A lack of civil service testing will lead to a government full of idiots. Why is that bad?

    ‘Of course we want key positions in government departments to be staffed by the best available people’. Maybe. Maybe not.

    Read More
    • Agree: dfordoom
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  3. Brabantian says: • Website

    Regarding how

    more women than men now attend college

    as John Derbyshire says above, and indeed now do get more Master degrees etc -

    An oft-claimed reason is that the digital era of video games and thousands of hours of free online pornography, have turned young male brains into mush, versus their female counterparts less inclined to such things

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mishra
    If you really don't think young female minds have likewise been turned to mush, you must be very good at avoiding things like Facebook and Television. My compliments.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  4. White people need to get over meritocracy as a goal and start discriminating in favor of whites.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mishra
    Not to worry: every company and government agency will keep a few white males on staff to do the difficult work, and even more importantly to shoulder the blame for the next bridge collapse.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  5. Arclight says:

    This is the result of diversity uber alles – in a society where most of the population more or less looks the same, people can live with a certain amount of economic inequality because it is more comfortable to attribute it to differences in effort or ability. In a racially or ethnically diverse society group differences in outcomes stand out and are more likely to be attributed to ‘structural’ problems in society, since no one wants to think their particular group lags others because on average they just aren’t quite as smart or have the wrong values. Then the policy response is blatantly putting a foot on the scale for some and ignoring the capabilities of others in the hope this levels things out, but it never does and aggravation grows on all sides.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  6. unit472 says:

    The good news is that a lot of these government and corporate positions that can be filled by anybody who can read and write are the very positions technology will render redundant. I don’t have to go to the DMV anymore to renew my license or registration. In fact, they charge extra if you don’t renew on line. If my tax forms can be filled out and submitted by Turbo Tax then they can be reviewed by an IRS program too. No need for thousands of IRS employees to open envelopes and process tax returns ( the IRS is 22% negro).

    The ability of government to mandate outcomes is coming to an end and a lot of people are going to have to rely on their ‘talent’ and not the government to get by. Many will fail.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  7. Elevation of fairness to the highest principle is irrational and undesirable, even if not combined with wholesale denial of biology.

    Opening elite positions to women simply serves to make the best women in society less marriageable and less likely to reproduce. This is dysgenic.

    Opening elite positions to negroes simply gives them more power to advance their own racial interests, which are necessarily opposed to the interests of whites because they are a fundamentally parasitic and criminal race.

    The only effect of Negro education is to spoil a good field hand and make an insolent cook.

    James K. Vardaman, Governor of Mississippi

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  8. Mishra says:
    @Brabantian
    Regarding how


    more women than men now attend college
     
    as John Derbyshire says above, and indeed now do get more Master degrees etc -

    An oft-claimed reason is that the digital era of video games and thousands of hours of free online pornography, have turned young male brains into mush, versus their female counterparts less inclined to such things

    If you really don’t think young female minds have likewise been turned to mush, you must be very good at avoiding things like Facebook and Television. My compliments.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  9. Mishra says:
    @Diversity Heretic
    White people need to get over meritocracy as a goal and start discriminating in favor of whites.

    Not to worry: every company and government agency will keep a few white males on staff to do the difficult work, and even more importantly to shoulder the blame for the next bridge collapse.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  10. KenH says:

    Zinke should have come out swinging and proclaimed that race and gender based hiring is not only wrecking the nation but grossly unfair to whites. Instead he cucked since he values his future employment in the $wamp more than the fate of the nation and his race.

    Our side has no spine at all so it’s not a wonder why we keep getting routed in the culture wars. You can’t win without courage and conservatives have very little of it . The establishment right tells the truth then backtracks and/or apologizes when the (((media hyenas))) turn up the heat.

    Fifty years of mostly black and to a lesser extent brown skin privilege have netted us absolutely nothing with respect to improved race relations or domestic tranquility. So it’s time to return to the days when whites get the best jobs and are given preference over non-whites in everything. If blacks don’t like it they can emigrate to Wakanda.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman

    Instead he cucked since he values his future employment in the $wamp more than the fate of the nation and his race.
     
    Yep, although I would just use the word cowardice instead of the term "cucking out" in this case.

    Anyway, that was a great comment, as usual, KenH.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  11. dfordoom says: • Website

    Of course we want key positions in government departments to be staffed by the best available people.

    Is that really sensible? If you want an institution, or a company, or a nation, to survive it might be wiser to choose the most loyal people rather than the best.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  12. anon[335] • Disclaimer says:

    Don’t forget that disproportionate outcomes are also guaranteed by randomness. A random distribution is not an even distribution. Take a handful of rice grains and scatter them randomly across a checkerboard. Does each square get exactly one grain of rice exactly in its center? Of course not, though that would be an even distribution. Instead, the rice scatters in random clusters. It takes a good statistician to tell you the difference between random clusters and caused clusters, and even then he can only give you a probability that the cluster is caused or random.
    Absent any discrimination, and absent any consistent causes of any kind, we would not have 50% women in this or that field or 13% blacks in this or that profession. We would be distributed randomly, which means clustered, which means disproportionately.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  13. In society at large, though, things were indubitably unfair until fifty years or so ago. It was hard for a woman to get qualified as a doctor or lawyer, much harder than for a man.

    Unfair? I really doubt that. These fields were just rightly not seen as normal fields for a woman to enter, that’s all. But then, Big State needed the tax money, and the cntrl-left of the 1960′s wanted to subvert the nuclear family. It was a win/win. That’s why things changed, not due to anyone making things more fair.

    Blacks were excluded from all sorts of zones by custom and by actual legislation.

    “Excluded from zones”? Is that about sections on the city buses? Big damn deal – right now a white person can’t even ride ANYWHERE on a city bus in most cities without being in danger. I think you may not know so much of this part of American history, Mr. Derbyshire. It’s easy to fall back on the long-term series of lies from the LP.

    Read More
    • Replies: @dfordoom


    In society at large, though, things were indubitably unfair until fifty years or so ago. It was hard for a woman to get qualified as a doctor or lawyer, much harder than for a man.
     
    Unfair? I really doubt that. These fields were just rightly not seen as normal fields for a woman to enter, that’s all.
     
    Agreed. Back then most women had little interest in becoming doctors or lawyers. I very much doubt that the handful who did want to do so faced any actual discrimination.

    Pretty much all the claims made by feminists are lies, and cuckservatives believe all those feminist lies.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  14. @KenH
    Zinke should have come out swinging and proclaimed that race and gender based hiring is not only wrecking the nation but grossly unfair to whites. Instead he cucked since he values his future employment in the $wamp more than the fate of the nation and his race.

    Our side has no spine at all so it's not a wonder why we keep getting routed in the culture wars. You can't win without courage and conservatives have very little of it . The establishment right tells the truth then backtracks and/or apologizes when the (((media hyenas))) turn up the heat.

    Fifty years of mostly black and to a lesser extent brown skin privilege have netted us absolutely nothing with respect to improved race relations or domestic tranquility. So it's time to return to the days when whites get the best jobs and are given preference over non-whites in everything. If blacks don't like it they can emigrate to Wakanda.

    Instead he cucked since he values his future employment in the $wamp more than the fate of the nation and his race.

    Yep, although I would just use the word cowardice instead of the term “cucking out” in this case.

    Anyway, that was a great comment, as usual, KenH.

    Read More
    • Replies: @KenH
    Thanks Achmed. Cowardice and cuck are synonymous but cuck is more insulting, hence its use in this situation.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  15. Randal says:

    What does that phrase mean, “a competitive examination of your background, work experience, and education”? If there is no written test, how is it “a competitive examination” of anything?

    What it means is that judgment of applicants is now “holistic.” That’s the preferred bureaucratic term, “holistic.”

    What that means is that the hiring official glances through your records to make sure you have some relevant schooling and experience and are not a career criminal, then hires you or not by quota according to your race, sex, and so on.

    This is not a totally contemptible approach. The heart of the matter here is fairness. Yes, we want the best people; but we also want Civil Service job applicants to be treated fairly.

    What it does mean is that selection of government staff is highly subjective – ie open to whatever ideological, personal or emotional whims drive the selectors, within whatever overall quotas are effectively imposed.

    It only means fairness (however that nebulous concept is to be interpreted) if that is genuinely what drives the selectors or if the system is effectively policed to imposed such.

    Seems unlikely, to be honest….

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  16. KenH says:
    @Achmed E. Newman

    Instead he cucked since he values his future employment in the $wamp more than the fate of the nation and his race.
     
    Yep, although I would just use the word cowardice instead of the term "cucking out" in this case.

    Anyway, that was a great comment, as usual, KenH.

    Thanks Achmed. Cowardice and cuck are synonymous but cuck is more insulting, hence its use in this situation.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  17. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Achmed E. Newman

    In society at large, though, things were indubitably unfair until fifty years or so ago. It was hard for a woman to get qualified as a doctor or lawyer, much harder than for a man.
     
    Unfair? I really doubt that. These fields were just rightly not seen as normal fields for a woman to enter, that's all. But then, Big State needed the tax money, and the cntrl-left of the 1960's wanted to subvert the nuclear family. It was a win/win. That's why things changed, not due to anyone making things more fair.

    Blacks were excluded from all sorts of zones by custom and by actual legislation.
     
    "Excluded from zones"? Is that about sections on the city buses? Big damn deal - right now a white person can't even ride ANYWHERE on a city bus in most cities without being in danger. I think you may not know so much of this part of American history, Mr. Derbyshire. It's easy to fall back on the long-term series of lies from the LP.

    In society at large, though, things were indubitably unfair until fifty years or so ago. It was hard for a woman to get qualified as a doctor or lawyer, much harder than for a man.

    Unfair? I really doubt that. These fields were just rightly not seen as normal fields for a woman to enter, that’s all.

    Agreed. Back then most women had little interest in becoming doctors or lawyers. I very much doubt that the handful who did want to do so faced any actual discrimination.

    Pretty much all the claims made by feminists are lies, and cuckservatives believe all those feminist lies.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  18. Be careful what you ask for. Do we want the Ivies and the boardrooms to be entirely stocked with Jews and Asians?

    Meritocracy is fine when you’re on top but otherwise not so fine. Most of us would like to see a mixture of meritocracy and diversity. Also, since when is “merit” purely a matter of IQ scores, test scores, or even grades? How about honesty, loyalty, kindness, courage, common sense? Would you want government offices staffed by unkind, dishonest, self-serving, sycophants with high IQs and great grades?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All John Derbyshire Comments via RSS