Those who endorse meritocracy believe that only hard-working, highly skilled individuals should ride the golden escalator of opportunity. When applied to America, a nation with vast racial disparities, this worldview only serves to justify the status quo. It's an effort to explain the haves and the have-nots. The "pick yourself up by your bootstraps" mantra is rooted in the myth that only lazy people struggle to make ends meet. However, given that unemployment rates were at their lowest point in 54 years and homelessness hit a record high this winter, it's safe to say that the vast poverty in this country is not the byproduct of laziness but of stagnant wages, inflation and insufficient affordable housing. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. once said, "It's a cruel jest to say to a bootless man that he ought to lift himself by his own bootstraps." And yet, this is precisely what the myth of meritocracy demands.
While conservatives used the principle of meritocracy in the post-civil rights era to oppose affirmative action and other pro-diversity programs, some are much less committed to this ideology than they led us to believe. One example of how meritocracy is selectively applied would be the conservative-led debates over the H1-B visa program, which permits American companies to hire and temporarily sponsor foreign-born workers. While those who support the program argue that highly skilled foreign-born workers help fill skill gaps and promote innovation, their opponents claim these jobs should only be filled by native-born citizens. This schism on the political right highlights how some only support the notion of meritocracy when it benefits their group, as they will quickly disregard the principle altogether if doing so increases racial diversity. In other words, some embraced meritocracy in a society where Black people have fewer resources and cannot fairly compete but are less supportive of the principle when it extends opportunities beyond Americans.
While anti-immigration sentiment is pervasive on the political right, this debate illustrates how this discourse has frayed. While some are supportive of immigrants who are considered highly skilled, others are intolerant of immigrants regardless of their qualifications. For instance, Laura Loomer, a far-right political activist, referred to Indian immigrants as "third-world invaders," rhetoric that portrays them as enemy outsiders. In response, Dr. Parik Patel highlighted numerous examples of Indians who are currently leaders of Fortune 500 companies, such as the CEO of Google, Sundar Pichai, the CEO of Microsoft, Satya Nadella, and the CEO of IBM, Arvind Krishna, a pattern many were unaware of. This is not the expected outcome for those White Americans who have long professed the value of meritocracy. Now that they are no longer exclusively seen as the best and brightest, some want to turn the page and boldly say that other factors should be considered, namely an individual's nationality.
Nicki Haley supported ending this program, using a less inflammatory tone, saying, "If the tech industry needs workers, invest in our education system." Of course, such rhetoric from the right is ironic given that President-elect Donald Trump, the leader of the Republican party, announced a plan to dismantle the Department of Education and threatened to deprive districts of federal funding if teachers introduce students to controversial topics, such as race, racism, or gender. If America were to close its doors to foreign-born talent while subsequently refusing to invest in education, that would be a recipe for disaster.
Why are some willing to drop meritocracy like a dirty rag in the debate over the H1-B visa program? White Americans are far less competitive with foreign-born individuals who do not come from disadvantaged backgrounds than they are when competing with native-born Black Americans who've endured generations of racial oppression. Therefore, some see that embracing meritocracy grants highly skilled immigrants opportunities, creating a much more diverse society of leaders than anticipated. Consider what Eugene Scott wrote in the Washington Post five years ago, that what drives political movements like the Tea Party, known for their resistance to the nation's first Black President, "were anxieties about demographic shifts — that the country was changing, they were seeing these racially ambiguous babies on Cheerios commercials. That the country wasn't quite feeling like a white nation anymore." When meritocracy no longer upholds the racial hierarchy in this country, some feel the worldview has overstayed its welcome.
Vivek Ramaswamy, an Indian American conservative, sparked controversy when he claimed that "American culture has venerated mediocrity over excellence." In a lengthy post on X, the former candidate for President argued that "Normalcy' doesn't cut it in a hyper-competitive global market for technical talent." He argued that America has elevated mediocrity to the extent that our workforce isn't competitive enough. While some may take offense, particularly those who buy into the notion that America is "the greatest" nation in the world, those who value diversity can see the benefits of welcoming talent from across the globe. Why should a company settle for the big fish in the small pond when they have an ocean of candidates? This is their line of thinking. Despite some Americans feeling their social standing threatened by such a policy, low unemployment rates indicate their jobs aren’t jeopardized.
It's ironic that some conservatives who typically wear meritocracy as a shield are willing to abandon it if it means embracing "highly trained" foreign-born workers, but there's another layer of irony at work here. Because Vivek just earlier this year claimed that "diversity is not our strength." And now he's trying to convince other Republicans that American companies hiring foreign-born individuals is in their best interest. In other words, he's making a case for diversity and inclusivity despite claiming that such efforts were fruitless not long ago. Just as his opponents are willing to cast meritocracy aside if it no longer serves their goal of maintaining white privilege, Vivek demonstrated he's willing to embrace diversity if it serves his overall purpose of strengthening the tech industry. Choosing a principle based on whether it benefits your group at any particular moment may cause harm in the long run.
As the author, Michael J. Sandel, noted, the principle of meritocracy fuels divisiveness. He argued that even in a meritocratic society "without cheating or bribing or special privileges for the wealthy," people adopt "the mistaken impression that we have made it on our own." Believing they are the only ones responsible for their success or failure is isolating. This hyper-individualism forgets that life is social and that "no man is an island." Success and failure are not simply reflections of an individual's commitment to hard work but also their environment, access to resources, and level of support. The façade of a merit-based society falls apart upon closer examination, like a sandcastle with visible cracks after the tide hits the shore. You see, merit has been selectively applied in this country to justify the deservingness of some and the lack of deservingness of others. For instance, during the Jim Crow era, companies and schools routinely denied opportunities to Black applicants without so much as considering their qualifications. Back then, the one mandatory qualification was whiteness.
Like many debates in America, this one is centered on deservingness and who should be extended opportunities for socioeconomic advancement. But underneath the seemingly benign discourse over whether or not American businesses should recruit foreign-born talent is the undercurrent of racism. If White conservatives were genuinely committed to fostering a meritocracy, as they claimed when opposing pro-diversity programs, why does their worldview change at the water's edge? It seems hypocritical to oppose the inclusion of highly qualified foreign-born immigrants while claiming that meritocracy should reign supreme. Indeed, this schism on the right reveals something once obscured. Opposing diversity was never about ensuring companies hire the best and brightest but maintaining an opportunity pipeline that rewards whiteness. Thus, opposing the H1 visa program is crucial for some who are far-right. They realize that a strict adherence to meritocracy could backfire. Whenever the conversation about the best and brightest shifts to talented Black people or people of color, suddenly, meritocracy is asked to stop backseat driving.
This post originally appeared on Medium and is edited and republished with author's permission. Read more of Dr. Allison Gaines' work on Medium.