Nobody claims that political appointments are "merit based." They're by definition political. But university admissions and employment are supposed to be merit based, not political.
He’s a carnival barker. That doesn’t change the fact that political appointments are political—they don’t have any relevance to merit-based admissions to universities or job hiring.
In fact, the distinction between political appointments and those other things is critical. In politics, you appoint people to reward your various constituencies. That’s just how politics works. But jobs and universities shouldn’t work that way.
> But university admissions and employment are supposed to be merit based, not political.
University admissions were not part of the DEI movement, they were part of the affirmative action movement. By conflating the two you’re unfairly grouping things of different types to tear them down together.
Nobody claims that political appointments are "merit based." They're by definition political. But university admissions and employment are supposed to be merit based, not political.
The person picking them does? We're told continuously how tremendously smart and wonderful they are.
He’s a carnival barker. That doesn’t change the fact that political appointments are political—they don’t have any relevance to merit-based admissions to universities or job hiring.
In fact, the distinction between political appointments and those other things is critical. In politics, you appoint people to reward your various constituencies. That’s just how politics works. But jobs and universities shouldn’t work that way.
1 reply →
> But university admissions and employment are supposed to be merit based, not political.
University admissions were not part of the DEI movement, they were part of the affirmative action movement. By conflating the two you’re unfairly grouping things of different types to tear them down together.