Some critics of the current meritocracy (what’s left of it, that is) claim that all they want is a better meritocracy — one that harnesses a much broader range of talent, perspective and experience to the overarching goal of excellence in every field.

Provided that the clear goal is the inclusion of a wide variety of people into institutions that uphold standards and produce excellence, rather than inclusion at the expense of standards and excellence, there might not be much controversy, but, tragically, that is not what is happening today. 

Instead, we are moving, at head-spinning speed, into a world where excellence is becoming a secondary goal at best, and where normal standards and expectations are not merely being adjusted or eased, but rather are overthrown and erased.

Addressing the issue, Peter Wood wrote in 2019 that “merit is such a useful idea that it is hard to think that a society could do without it, and probably none does. (Wood is president of the National Association of Scholars and author of “1620: A Critical Response to the 1619 Project.”)

“That, however, hasn’t restrained a burgeoning industry of people who are fed up with the whole idea. ‘Abolish merit!’ they thunder. ‘It is so unfair!’ Or, ‘Abolish meritocracy! It oppresses me.’

“Meritocracy was popularized by a British socialist, Michael Young, in 1958, who propelled it into common use in his book ‘The Rise of the Meritocracy.’ Young’s book describes a British future (the year 2034) in which society is split between the talented and educated class on the one hand and the rest of the population on the other hand. Whether Young thought this an entirely bad idea is difficult to say. He plainly didn’t think it was a recipe for a perfect society. His imagined meritocracy replaced older class divisions with new kinds of inequality. 

“Young devoted much of his life to building Britain’s post-war welfare state, and he hated the British class system. But he harbored the suspicion that human hierarchy would never simply disappear. Rather, it would sneak into new institutional arrangements,” Wood wrote.

“At some level, we simply know that some people have greater skills and perform better at some difficult challenges than others. They merit their victories and the acclaim that follows.

“We can agree that a meritocracy is vulnerable to a great many forms of mischief (e.g. Felicity Huffman) and to many cases of abuse (e.g. MacArthur “genius” awards), but these are endemic problems in any social order, not reasons to burn the system down....

“Right now, we are drifting toward the rapids. It’s going to take clear thinking, enterprise and moral courage to move us elsewhere. Wouldn’t it be nice if there were still real meritocrats among us who could do the job?” Wood asked, rhetorically.

To Wood’s question, we say: Never give up the quest for excellence!