Defending the Merits of the ‘Meritocracy’

After reading professor Judy B. Rosener’s attack on the idea of a “meritocracy” (“Standards of Meritocracy Don’t Add Up,” Times Board of Advisors, Feb. 2) in which she promotes the idea of “subjective standards,” I have to wonder whose oxymoron will be gored if she gets what she wants.

Although she says “it’s possible to establish standards that consider subjective as well as objective criteria,” how can you have “standards” that are not themselves objective?

In fact, any system that does not include generally agreed-upon objective standards will be subject to the very same charges of prejudice, favoritism and cronyism that we all want to avoid.

Rosener goes on to proclaim that “college admissions and some government contracting” should involve “subjective judgments.” But how could we be sure that such judgments would be fair? How would Rosener like it if, under such a program of “subjective standards,” the freshman class at UCI ended up consisting of 90% white and Asian men? Would she be satisfied with that result, or would she write another article complaining about the “subjective-ocracy”?

Rosener concludes by saying, “It’s time [for those who peddle meritocracy] to come clean about how meritocracy works.”

To which we would retort: “It is time for those who favor ‘subjective standards’ to explain how their system would fairly take into account such factors as ‘life experiences,’ ‘communication skills’ and ‘the ability to value differences’ (whatever that means).”

RICHARD SHOWSTACK

Newport Beach