I read Rebecca Sassouni’s response to my letter to the editor from two weeks ago calling for an alternative to DEI consisting of tolerance, individualism, meritocracy, and equality.  She characterizes the third of these pillars as “the so-called neutral meritocracy.”

I am not sure exactly what she imagines that I meant to warrant that description.

However, based on the writings of others who have critiqued meritocracy using similar language, I suspect that she may think that I believe that meritocracy is achieved by simply eliminating affirmative action and otherwise maintaining the status quo.  This could not be further from the truth.

Perhaps I should have provided more detail on this point in my original letter.

While our society is more meritocratic than most that have existed throughout history, we still have no shortage of work to do toward fully realizing this ideal.

Let’s start with two of the other non-merit-based criteria used in college admissions that were discussed in oral arguments before the Supreme Court in the Students for Fair Admissions cases: legacies and preferences for the children of wealthy donors.

Both of these need to go.  There is also a clear preference by the most selective colleges for students from private high schools over those from public high schools.  This should also be eliminated.

Removing these criteria could create countless opportunities for deserving students of all races who have been unjustly rejected under the current system.

Meritocracy encompasses not just admissions but also the ability to actually enroll and earn a degree. That means tackling the skyrocketing cost of college tuition.  While the causes of this problem are numerous, one major factor is the administrative industrial complex, including but not limited to the diversity industrial complex.

Every time that another DEI bureaucrat is hired at a salary in the richest 1% to chastise students from middle-class and working-class backgrounds for their supposed privilege, it makes college that much more expensive for students struggling to afford it.

We should also consider protecting a student’s right to choose their own food and housing.  If landlords and businesses in the local community can provide better options at a lower price, then students shouldn’t be forced to shell out additional money to the school.

Perhaps even more importantly, though, meritocracy should extend to the K-12 level as well as higher education.  We should guarantee that students who qualify for gifted programs in elementary school or honors courses in high school can pursue those opportunities without regard to the zip code where they live or their parents’ income.

This should be a legally protected right, just like the right of special education students to have their needs met.  We should also consider changes to how school districts are funded so that lower-income communities have adequate financial resources to ensure that their students’ needs are met, even if they collect less in property taxes.

These are some of the ways that we might pursue greater equality of opportunity without treating people differently on account of their race, gender, or any other accident of birth.

This is not about slapping the word “meritocracy” on the current system and pretending that everything is fine but rather about finding ways to make our society genuinely more meritocratic.

The above proposals are the ideas of one person, and I don’t doubt that others will have many worthy recommendations that may not have occurred to me.  I hope that you will join me in exploring how we can best structure our society to be fair to everyone.

David Golub

Mineola