On Thu, 28 Mar 2019 at 12:45, Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com> wrote:
> some people, "meritocracy" is a bad word, and I say I disagree.
>
> even when studies show that using that word *specifically* leads to less
equitable organizations?
> "Merit has nothing to do with gender, or race, or religion,
> or what genitalia one has or is attracted to. If your idea
> of what constitutes merit is based on any of these, then
> that's a f'ed up definition of merit. That means it's a
> problem w/ how merit is defined, and not meritocracy per se."
>
*ideally*
but in practice, this isn't true. and our committer demographics
demonstrate this
> We reward
> those actions and behaviors that help build and nurture a community.
> Those are the actions and behaviors that gain one merit.
>
but we recognize and reward those actions and behaviors in a way that
excludes people. in a way that privileges people who are already privileged
(white men, etc, etc) and discriminates against the already marginalized
i.e., the way we actually *do* this is, to borrow your phrase, "f*ed up"
> So even though it might be a losing battle, I still say that
> problems w/ meritocracy are based on incomplete or inappropriate
> definitions of merit and not the concept itself.
>
I am wary of repeating myself too many times. but again, I will mention
that the original satirical invention of "the meritocracy" was to make the
argument that any such implementation of the idea is *doomed to failure*
because the already privileged SUCK at determining who deserves
"recognition of merit" and that this is only exacerbated when they have an
ideological framework ("the meritocracy") to justify and legitimize their
existing biases (something which has, again, been demonstrated by academic
researchers)
