Equity, Not Meritocracy

Ever since Biden’s speech to Canada’s Parliament this weekend, Conservative politicians here have been going off about whether or not the female members of cabinet “got there because of their sex or because of merit”.  Consider the following from Poilievre’s communications lead:

The level of sexism and misogyny in this is stunning. The implication of course being that many of the women at the table got there because of their sex, not ability or skill. One of the fundamental principles of feminism is of course that women should be recognized for their abilities, and not have their futures defined solely by their sex. I didn’t think this was terribly difficult to grasp, but apparently in conservative circles, the question remains whether a woman got to her position because of “merit” or on other grounds (they do the same garbage to any marginalized community).

The problem with the conservative notion of “merit”, is that it ignores systemic barriers that various communities face.  It ignores the necessity of making real changes in order to remove those systemic barriers in order for the system to be in fact equitable. 

“Merit” isn’t some magical incantation that removes barriers and puts everybody on an equal playing field. The fact that women still find their skills and qualifications questioned when they rise to positions of prominence is astonishing. That in itself shows us the enormous blind spot that conservative politics has. Yes, it’s important that someone be skilled and capable in their position - whatever it may be. No, it should not be considered acceptable to question those skills and abilities simply because they are in a particular position. 

Taking steps to remove systemic barriers and obstacles does not mean someone was hired into a position “as a pity hire”, nor does it mean that some equally qualified man was pushed out of that position. Equity demands that we as a society take steps to remove barriers so that people have _equitable_ access to opportunities. 

There are good reasons why Pierre Trudeau spoke of a “Just Society”, and more recently we’ve heard the Federal Government talk about a “Just Transition” in reference to the energy transition that is coming in Canada. Just in this framework means that the changes that occur must be equitable, not merely “equal”, and that as a society we need to move consciously towards removing barriers in a way that balances the outcomes. 

Insinuating that someone is “less qualified” because there is a system of equity in place that starts the process of dismantling those barriers is offensive at best. At its worst, it demonstrates a deep intransigence among conservatives to acknowledge that the systems they defend are intrinsically biased in particular directions. 

I used to work in the software industry, a domain that is notorious for its adoration of “the meritocracy”, as if only the most technically proficient should rise to the top because of their skill. The reality is far from that. I’ve seen people who were really terrible developers, but really good at office politics rise to positions they should never have been in; I’ve seen technically capable people moved into leadership roles with no leadership ability whatsoever. Women and minorities struggle to make forward progress in that field - often left at intermediate positions because they aren’t seen as “committed” because they might prioritize their families outside of work, and thus work less “free overtime”. The result is anything but a “meritocracy”. 

Without equity in the system, equality is compromised, and the concept of “merit” is utterly impossible to assess intelligibly.