Which Problem

The first thing that comes to mind, every time I see yet another online argument that pits "meritocracy" against "diversity" is:

A brilliantly inspired solution to the wrong problem is still solving the wrong problem.

Regardless of whether one believes that the Trump Administration's hostility to "diversity, equity and inclusion" programs is born of a sincere desire for the United States to operate solely on some or another definition of merit, or is little more than a fig leaf covering a mindset that wishes to return to the days of openly discriminatory hiring practices (which wasn't really all that long ago), the argument over it misdirects the spotlight.

In accepting the framing that the number of desirable jobs should be limited when compared to the number of people who want them, the focus moves away from remedying scarcity to managing (and sometimes, it seems, nurturing) it. And there's no way to manage scarcity that will force everyone, especially those who can't get what they need, to concede that the distribution is fair. And because "fairness" is not an objective attribute of anything, it will always be a bone of contention.

There is no value in looking for yet another way to figure out who should be left without a piece of the pie. It's simply a recipe for argument and division. But sometimes, I suspect, that's the point, given that there's no way to win a fight that doesn't happen.