Does diversity sacrifice excellence?
And is meritocracy a sham? Two Yale profs offer views
In each corner is a a professor of law at Yale University, and the battle is over the future direction of the country.
Anthony T. Kronman’s “The Assault on American Excellence” and Daniel Markovits’ “The Meritocracy Trap: How America’s Foundational Myth Feeds Inequality, Dismantles the Middle Class, and Devours the Elite,” are not necessarily in direct opposition to each other, but as I read Markovits just after reading Kronman, I couldn’t help but reflect on how they are part of the same ongoing conversation.
“The Assault on American Excellence” is something between a lament and a jeremiad by the former dean of Yale Law School about what he sees as the sacrificing of “excellence” in the pursuit of “diversity.” In Kronman’s view, “excellence” — which is left largely undefined — is the animating force for elite higher education institutions and the broader culture. The elite are truly that — elite — and to dilute this by privileging diversity is a betrayal of core institutional and cultural values.
Markovits, on the other hand, thinks the “meritocracy” is not only a trap, but a “sham,” a rigged game that only a select few even get to play. In this frame, “excellence” becomes meaningless, as ability doesn’t matter to outcomes so much as pedigree and wealth. Even worse, according to Markovits, those who gain access to the meritocratic ladder are being slowly “devoured” as more and more of their time and energy must be spent maintaining their status and advantages.
They are “excellenting” themselves to death.
Markovits’ book is far more rigorous in its exploration of these tensions. There is a distinct “Get off my lawn” quality to Kronman’s litany of complaints about political correctness, and he makes his stand in some strange places — for example, criticizing Yale’s decision to rename Calhoun College (named after alumnus John C. Calhoun) following what was a rather rigorous, communal process. I’m not sure how continuing to honor one of history’s most prominent white supremacists who had no substantive connection to Yale conveys excellence, but Kronman is put out by the change. Kronman seems primarily discomforted that people unlike him may one day be in charge.
Markovits, on the other hand, marshals an impressive, almost overwhelming array of evidence and statistics. As someone who has climbed the ladder to its highest rungs, he is perhaps uniquely positioned to articulate the problems associated with the enshrinement of an elite class that functions under the guise of “meritocracy,” but is, in reality, keeping us from examining problems of structural inequality.
While I occasionally felt bludgeoned by Markovits’ approach, in a world where one-third of Harvard’s admits are legacies and a significant percentage of the Forbes 400 richest people have inherited their wealth, it’s not a stretch to believe that some parts of this game appear to be rigged against all but very richest.
As to the devouring, think of the recent news about wealthy North Shore parents who were voluntarily forsaking the guardianship of their children so their kids could qualify for college financial aid. When even the winners think they’re losing and act in ways that crowd out opportunities for those truly in need, the ladder to success gets slipperier and slipperier.
For many, there is no ladder at all. Put me much closer to Markovits’ camp, but also mark me down as eager to hear more from people who didn’t make it to Yale. Maybe they’ve got some wisdom to share, and we just haven’t been paying attention.
Ishiguro
Yates
Muriel Spark
I don’t recommend this book to a lot of people, because it has a powerful emotional effect that not everyone appreciates, but Tessa looks like the right reader for it:
by Willy Vlautin.
Get a reading from the Biblioracle
Send a list of the last five books you’ve read to books@chicagotribune.com.