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.

Why are my taxes paying for private club memberships?

Charles Ungerleider, Professor Emeritus, The University of British Columbia

[permission to reproduce granted if authorship is acknowledged]

U.S. Education Secretary Betsy DeVos sparked outrage when she funneled COVID-19 relief funding intended for public institutions to private and religious schools. DeVos gave a broad interpretation (policy guidance) to the relief bill that, by the time you read this, will likely have been narrowed through Congressional action and public pressure.

For nearly fifty years, British Columbians have been subsidizing private and religious schools as a matter of public policy, but to date there has been no public objection. British Columbia is not alone. Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and Quebec have policies to provide funding to private schools as a matter of policy.

Policy is the mechanism democratic societies use to allocate scarce public resources. If the resource supply were unlimited, you would have no need for policy; you could just drop by and take what you want. By setting public policy, our elected officials make difficult choices about how our scarce resources will be spent on health care, education, housing, sanitation, water, etc.  Not all resource allocation decisions are well considered, but once decided they are often hard to reverse.

Since the late 1970s, British Columbia has been subsidizing the education of students whose parents prefer that they be educated in private schools. Today, the subsidies amount to more than $300,000,000 per year. It is not the amount of money to which I object, though the amount is not trivial. I object to my taxes paying for memberships to private clubs to which access is restricted.

Private schools in British Columbia call themselves independent schools. They are independent only in the sense that they can choose who does and does not attend. Public schools are open to everyone.

Subsidies to parents whose children attend private schools are inequitable. According to Statistics Canada, when private school students are compared with their public-school peers, they are more likely to live in families with two biological parents whose higher income affords such advantages as more computers and books in the home.

The public policy question is: Do we (all citizens) want our scarce tax dollars paying for something available only to a specific group? I think not.

Private schools in British Columbia work to defend their subsidized status by fueling public concern about the increased cost that will be incurred if the students in private school returned to public schools. That is like a private golf club arguing that, if it is not subsidized, it will close and all its members will go to the public golf course, making it more difficult to get a tee-time and more expensive to maintain the greens.  

Private school advocates often frame the issue as one of parental choice about the education their children receive. Parents are certainly free to choose private schools, but they should not be free to use my taxes or yours to subsidize their choices.

Let me put it another way: There is a perfectly good tennis court at the publicly funded community centre near my home. But if I would prefer to play at a private tennis club would you help pay for my membership in that private tennis club?

I didn’t think so.

Reversing the 40 year old subsidy policy will take strong political will to withstand the inevitable and intense lobbying by private schools and their supporters. However, a reasoned and thoughtful campaign in favour of the change by supporters of public schools should be able to sway public sentiment.

I think it is time that we stopped subsidizing the private club memberships for a small, relatively more advantaged, segment of the population.