Meritocracy and Mediocrity: Why We Need Affirmative Action
W.E.B. DuBois called them “the talented tenth” – the ten percent of the African-American population with the innate skills and ambition to succeed despite the prejudices of white society. His political demand was that these bright stars be given a chance to shine, such that their glow would eventually light the path for others and “uplift the race.” As one of the most gifted intellectuals of his era who never received the recognition he deserved by dint of his skin color, DuBois knew whereof he spoke. The denial of opportunities for those of clear merit was a matter of such manifest injustice that even hardened racists had difficulty debating it. The problem, of course, comes with what to do about the other 90%.
It’s not just a problem for minorities. The “talented tenth” descriptor cuts across all boundaries of race, gender and ethnicity. Outstanding people will almost always find a way to rise to the top, even in societies designed to perpetuate privilege regardless of merit. The true measure of an equal opportunity society is how well people of average abilities are able to procure for themselves and their families some measure of wealth, status and security. It’s for this vast middle region of the social spectrum that inherent assumption about race and other factors can be decisive in determining how big a slice of the pie they receive. And it’s where tribal politics gets bloody – whether in America or anywhere else in the world.
Throughout American history, those established in power have done their best to create opportunities for themselves and keep everyone else out. In every generation, the talented vanguard of each group – Irish, Italian, Jewish, Chicano, Asian – has used the promise of equality inherent in the American system to fight their way inside the power structure and then set to work building institutions designed to make the fight easier for future generations. With lower boundaries to success, a greater number of each group could gain access to social resources with less need to rely on superior competitive abilities. Once the new groups had gained access to the power structure, they adopted the exclusionary mentality of the insiders and attempted to erect new barriers against other tribes, trying to protect the mediocre among their own numbers against the predations of the outstanding competitors from the outside.
For well-documented historical reasons, African-Americans were extremely late participants in this dynamic. The Civil Rights movement of the 1960s finally removed most of the legal barriers to participation in social, economic and political rights for African-Americans. This made it possible for blacks to compete in the same arena as everyone else, ostensibly under the same rules. As a result, the “talented tenth” – maybe even the talented 25% - quickly established themselves at the social and economic levels that their abilities entitled them to. With the most obvious injustices thereby remedied, the dominant society was eager to get back to business as usual before any more resources could be lost to the insurgent group.
While the first round of Civil Rights struggles was manifestly an issue of redressing political injustice based on race, the fight over Affirmative Action is much more a matter of economics. The Civil Rights era established that blacks with the clear abilities to compete and win in American society could not be denied their due by dint of legal edict. That’s basic fairness. But what about those of all races whose abilities are less clear? In a true meritocracy, the mediocre live in a constant state of unease. Evenly-matched competitors look for any kind of advantage to propel themselves, their families and those of similar affiliation into a situation of comfort and security. It is at this level of competition, moreso than at the strata of excellence, that society’s subtle assumptions about race –commonly called “institutional racism” – make themselves felt to the undue advantage of some, and thereby the detriment of others.
It is important to understand that the presence of institutional racism that benefits white men does not need to manifest itself as hatred of minorities in order to do its damage. American society has accorded unearned privileges to white men of mediocre talents for hundreds of years because it was assumed, due to prejudices of race and gender, that their prosperity was necessary to the strength and survival of the country, even at the expense of better- or equally-qualified women or minorities. Despite the Civil Rights movement, this attitude still persists in many areas of American life today.
As anyone with even a passing familiarity with corporate America will tell you, the ranks of middle management are filled with white men of extremely modest ability. The products of suburban homes, with passing grades from well-funded suburban schools, who partied their way through mid-level universities and were eventually recruited by like-minded people in the HR departments of big companies, these non-stellar folks are nonetheless paid well enough to afford their own home in the suburbs, with an SUV in the driveway and nice dinners out with the family at the Olive Garden on Friday nights. There’s nothing wrong with this – in fact, American society is well-served by its ability to provide so well for so many average folks.
Nevertheless, to suggest that race (and, more particularly, race plus class background) has nothing to do with this fellow’s good fortune is self-delusion. Mr. Middle Manager may not have benefited at the expense of any particular minority individual, but he clearly benefited from the institutional assumption that society exists to make sure his kind of person gets what he “deserves.” Teachers, recruiters and bosses all look at certain types of young white men as inherently destined for a career path designed to provide a good and growing income, and burden is on the candidate to demonstrate somehow that he is unworthy. Women and minorities, on the other hand, must prove why they are worthy before receiving the same consideration.
It is rarely assumed that a young black man of less than exceptional abilities is “management material” or indeed suited for any kind of white-collar occupation, especially when it is a white man making the decision. That hint of prejudice is often enough to make the difference, particularly when few of the individuals competing for resources at this level are exceptionally talented. On a case-by-case basis, each decision can perhaps be justified, but the aggregate outcome is a large income and opportunity gap between races in our ostensibly equal-opportunity society.
If we agree that meritocracy is the goal, then the distortions introduced by attitudes about race must be redressed. It’s unlikely that we can expect people to change deeply-engrained attitudes or allegiances to primal tribal affiliations, so the intervention of law is necessary. Affirmative Action is a blunt weapon to use against such a subtle problem, but it is nevertheless the best tool we have until non-white people are sufficiently well-represented among the powerful decision-makers of society that the institutional advantages of whites are no longer so decisive in determining outcomes.
Correcting the problems of racial bias in this way meets with intense opposition from “angry white men.” It should. It is their slice of pie that is going to be served up to the disenfranchised groups, and they are going to have to fight on equal terms for what they’ve been handed for free all these years. As such, they desperately want to paint the issue as one of talent and merit, and appeal to society to uphold those principles against “quotas” and “racial preferences.” That’s a smokescreen. Talent and merit are almost always served, while mediocrity has to fight for its life. True believers in the benefits of open competition should see Affirmative Action as a means of opening up the field to a broader conception of “qualification” – to the short-term detriment of a certain class who enjoy unearned privileges, but to the longer-term benefit of society as a whole.
9:53:42 AM 
|
|
