Meritocracy and Equity

Charles Ungerleider, Professor Emeritus, The University of British Columbia

[Permission to reproduce granted if authorship is acknowledged]  

In a National Post opinion piece, author Jamie Sarkonak critiques the Toronto District School Board's (TDSB) decision to replace merit-based admissions to specialty education programs with what he describes as a racial lottery system. According to Sarkonak, this system is counterproductive to promoting fairness in education.  

Under the new system, 20% of seats in special programs have been reserved for Black, Middle Eastern, Latin American, and Indigenous students. Sarkonak argues this approach neglects the real issue at hand: socio-economic disadvantage. Instead, it places the problem squarely on race, a move which Sarkonak believes undermines the principles of meritocracy. Some parents and community members have expressed concern about the shift in admissions policy, arguing that it ignores the hard work and achievements of students, replacing merit with sheer luck. Others have applauded the change because it levels the playing field for racialized students who are often under-represented in such programs.  

The principle of meritocracy – that each person's status should be a direct reflection of their individual talent and effort – holds a significant place in The North American mythology: the image of the resilient and plucky young man (yes, man because that is the dominant imagery in the myth) overcoming hardship and becoming rich.  

Equity, on the other hand, calls attention to the broader societal structures that shape individual opportunities. This principle prompts reflection on the systemic injustices that have often been entangled in Canada's progress, asking us to question how to promote fairness in the distribution of resources and opportunities.  

Canadians have contended with these two principles at other points throughout Canadian history. For instance, the late 19th and early 20th century was a time of rapid industrial growth and burgeoning faith in meritocracy. The Canadian Pacific Railway's completion symbolized the triumph of industrial ambition and individual fortitude. However, the harsh realities faced by many workers, including the often-overlooked contributions of Chinese immigrants, underlined the vast inequities that existed.  

Reforms in the 20th century, particularly with the advent of the welfare state after the Great Depression and World War II, demonstrated a growing concern for equity. Policies such as universal health care, introduced in the 1960s, spoke to a collective commitment to diminish systemic barriers and improve access to essential services for all Canadians.  

As evidenced by the debate at the Toronto District School Board, the debate about meritocracy and equity continues to shape Canadian public discourse. Debates about issues such as Indigenous rights, immigration, and social safety nets reflect this ongoing conversation. At the heart of these discussions is a fundamental question about society's values: should individual effort be the sole determinant of success, or must we also address systemic barriers that restrict access to opportunities for certain groups?  

While the concept of meritocracy, the idea that those who work hard and possess talent should rise to the top, has an intuitive appeal, it can be argued that this perspective often overlooks the role of privilege and luck in shaping people's lives. The argument for meritocracy assumes a level playing field, where everyone starts from the same place and has the same opportunities to succeed. However, this is not the reality for most people. In an ideal meritocracy, every individual, regardless of their background, would have equal access to quality education, healthcare, and opportunities to develop their skills. Yet, many are born into circumstances with limited resources, and fewer opportunities to cultivate their abilities. These individuals face greater barriers to success, no matter how talented or hard-working they might be.  

Luck plays a significant part in life's outcomes. Even when someone has worked hard and earned their achievements, it doesn't negate the role that luck may have played. This can take the form of being born into a supportive family, meeting a mentor at a crucial point in life, or simply being in the right place at the right time. To believe one's success is purely a result of their efforts is to overlook the serendipitous nature of many – perhaps most - opportunities.  

It is crucial to remember the systemic nature of many privileges. For example, a person born into a wealthy family has access to better educational opportunities, a broader social network, and a safety net if things go wrong. Societal biases often benefit certain groups, giving them an edge in educational and career opportunities.  

While individual effort and merit are important, they are part of a larger equation. The interplay of privilege and luck can significantly impact a person's opportunities and their capacity to capitalize on them. Recognizing these factors allows us to create a more equitable society where everyone genuinely has the chance to succeed based on their merit.

Race and anti-racism, socialization, indoctrination, and education

 Charles Ungerleider, Professor Emeritus, The University of British Columbia

[permission to reproduce granted if authorship is acknowledged]

 I recently talked with racialized high school students about how schools should respond to racism, an issue that affects them deeply, personally, and frequently. To a person, each student said educate students about racism and the corrosive and hurtful consequences of racism for those immediately involved and for the community. When I inquired about punishment, they acknowledged that punishment might come into play if the individual repeatedly perpetrated acts motivated by racial animus, but they saw education as the primary response.  

The students’ appreciation for the power of education prompted me to wonder if the educations system was sufficiently sophisticated to distinguish among three easily confused processes - socialization, indoctrination, and education. All three processes can affect how people acquire knowledge, beliefs, and values, but only socialization and education have a legitimate place in schools.  

It is through the process of socialization that we learn the norms, values, and customs of our society. We acquire an understanding of society’s expectations by observing the behaviour of those around us and making inferences about how we should behave to function within that society. Socialization begins in childhood and continues throughout an individual's life. Children learn how to behave and follow social norms by observing and imitating the behavior of their parents, peers, and other members of their community. Socialization is generally a gradual process that occurs naturally.  

Indoctrination is the process of inculcating beliefs or ideologies without questioning or critically examining them, often with the intention of shaping the person’s attitudes, values, and behaviors according to a particular political or social agenda. Indoctrination occurs among adherents of religious organizations, political parties, and during military training.  Indoctrination is often intentional and may involve coercion or manipulation by someone in a position of authority who seeks to promote specific beliefs or values.  

Education is an intentional process of equipping people with the knowledge they need to function in specific contexts. It differs from indoctrination because when done appropriately, education encourages a critical examination of the knowledge one is being asked to acquire.  

The issues of race and racism provide an excellent example of how socialization, indoctrination, and education can impact individuals' beliefs and attitudes.  

Socialization, the process by which one learns the norms, values, and customs of their culture or society, can include learning about racial and ethnic identities, and the beliefs and attitudes associated with those identities. Children often learn about race through their interactions with their parents, peers, and other members of their community. Through this informal process, they may learn to assign individuals to groups based on skin colour and to attribute certain characteristics and values to those groups.  

Indoctrination is the conscious promotion of a specific set of beliefs or values. When racist ideologies are actively promoted and people are encouraged to accept these beliefs without questioning or critically examining them, they are being indoctrinated. A conscious effort to inculcate an unquestioning and uncritical anti-racist perspective is indoctrination even though the intention may be to promote a society in which bias, prejudice, and hatred have no place.  

Education encourages critical thinking and provides individuals with the tools to evaluate and analyze what they are being asked to acquire from multiple perspectives. That includes thinking critically about the norms to which they have been socialized.  

Effective education on race and racism provides individuals with an understanding of the history and cultural context of race relations, as well as the scientific evidence that supports the idea of human genetic diversity. Education should encourage individuals to critically evaluate what they are being asked to learn in order to develop an understanding of the complexities of the issue.  

Socialization, indoctrination, and education all affect an individuals' beliefs and attitudes related to race and racism. While socialization involves the natural process of learning about racial and ethnic identities, indoctrination involves promoting a specific set of beliefs without encouraging critical thinking. Education, on the other hand, provides individuals with the knowledge they need to understand race and racism and encourages them to think critically and analytically about race and racism.  

The racialized students with whom I discussed responses to racism placed great trust in schools to educate students about the perniciousness and impact of racism. They placed little or no value on coercion or punishment as a response to racism, recognizing that coercion and punishment might have a fleeting impact on behaviour, but would not equip students to understand the reasons why racism is corrosive and harmful.