It's Kamala!

[Dill]

(08-15-2020, 11:14 AM)hollodero Wrote: I don't agree that argueing for the best person is a sign of a meritless and selective defense of meritocracy. I get that the argument got misused, but that doesn't make it inherently moot or discriminatory or anything.

On the other hand, Puff Diddy and all the other self-declared Black leaders threatened Biden when he dared to talk to Gretchen Whitmer. They claimed that if he didn't choose a black woman as VP, he'd be a "devil", one of those devils black people are sick of voting for. This is just irrational, promotes identity politics, I know this word is frowned upon, but it is. At least I get why many might perceive it that way, or why people might say that the democrats are overly focused on one specific demographic that, after all, 84% of people do not belong to that also vote and that also have grievances and desires.

No one is arguing that "arguing for the best person" is in itself or in the abstract a "sign of meritless and selective defense of meritocracy."  In North America, that was a battle already won for white males in the northern American colonies by the 1770s. (lol, not where you live, though .) And most civil rights activists in the US have worked to extend, not refute it. So no one actually has to argue FOR the principle any more, they way the did back in the 18th century. It only seems to pop up now in the US as a rear guard action to protect a racial status quo.

That's why I argue that its use for over a century has been "selective" not in principle but in specific, historical contexts. The University of Texas is a good example, here. For almost a decade after it was supposedly integrated, it prevented "negroes" from playing in their marching band, though granting them auditions. Similar deal with the football team, though competition with other schools forced change there more than the law. In the case of band and football, applying students had about equal HS experience and roughly equal chances of acquiring "merit."  Very different with the law school. There a great divergence appeared in the background preparation of students, owing largely to educational segregation and parental income. The then director of the law school was a staunch defender of segregation until the mid sixties, when he recognized that "merit" would work almost effectively as the law in keeping "colored" students out of UT's law school.  This set the stage for the phenomenon of "reverse racism" and charges of civil rights hypocrisy--"MLK fought so that people would only be judged on their character/accomplishments; now these activists want "privilege" and the very type of racial exception they claimed to fight against." I.e., a former segregationist suddenly found an effective way to paralyze integration, by arguing that race should not be a criterion for admission.  And for the next two decades this tactic would be effective to the degree that people could be directed away from the social context of meritocratic application to the abstract argument about whether the principle was in itself a good thing. ("Are you saying that people SHOULDN'T be selected according to merit--Like the segregationists did?!?")  People can count on references to merit always being a "fair point."

So whether "arguing for the best person is a sign of a meritless and selective defense of meritocracy," or not, actually depends upon who is deploying it for what reason and in what context. If it is deployed to block racial integration, then it matters little whether it is "inherently" discriminatory or not--except that appeal to its supposed neutrality helps block exposure and critique. That's how it became a tool of the right, especially in the early battles over affirmative action, from Bakke on. And that's why I draw people's attention to those situations in which its actual deployment is as a mode of deflection, a rear guard defense of existing privilege.

Anyway, this is why I read the "merit over race" argument very differently from Fox commentators, who are protecting a racial status quo, than I read it from you, a guy who's just puzzled that I make a big deal out of principle which is not inherently discriminatory, though it "sometimes" gets misused.