SPOTM agrees with the principle.
Excellence is an identification of reality: some performances, ideas, and products are better than others by a standard independent of who produced them. Diversity, as a count of groups, is not that standard.
What the sentence gets right
- A hospital, airline, lab, regiment, or orchestra has a job. The job is not to look like a census table.
- When hiring, grading, or promoting, the moral claim of the patient, passenger, student, or customer is competence.
- If “diversity” means setting aside evidence of ability so that group ratios come out right, then reality is being sacrificed to a social goal. That is the primacy of a political One over the facts of the many.
SPOTM’s test is alignment with what is. A surgeon is a surgeon by skill. A theorem is true or false without regard to the author’s category. A firm that pretends otherwise will eventually meet the thing it ignored: infection, crash, error, bankruptcy.
What “diversity” can mean without that sacrifice
Voluntary variety is not the enemy:
- people of different backgrounds who meet the same standard
- disagreement that is still about the work
- open entry so talent is not blocked by race or sex
That is individualism plus color-blind rules. It is not a quota. It does not require a drop in excellence. It forbids using group identity as a substitute for evidence.
Where the sacrifice actually happens
The altar appears when institutions:
- treat group representation as a goal that can override merit
- call unequal group outcomes “proof” that the standard is unjust
- punish naming of gaps in preparation or behavior
- grade the process by demographic scoreboard rather than by output
Then diversity is no longer a possible byproduct of open competition. It is a rival criterion. Something has to give. What gives is the standard.
SPOTM formulation
| Aligned | Misaligned |
|---|---|
| Judge the work | Judge the passport of the worker |
| Open the door; keep the bar | Lower the bar to fill a category |
| Diversity as result of merit | Diversity as a duty that trumps merit |
| Individual rights | Group entitlements |
Bottom line:
Excellence is not bigotry. It is respect for reality and for the people who depend on the work being done well. A society that puts group aesthetics above competence is not becoming more just. It is becoming less in contact with what works.
In addition:
Further points:
1. Excellence is not a mood. It is a measurement.
“Excellence” means a performance that meets a demanding standard: fewer errors, more truth, higher output per input, greater reliability. That standard is set by the nature of the task, not by a committee’s preferred headcount.
A bridge either holds or it does not. A proof either follows or it does not. A fighter pilot either tracks the target or does not. Group membership does not enter the criterion unless the task itself is “represent the group.” Most serious tasks are not that.
2. The hidden premise of the altar
The sacrifice happens only if you accept this premise:
Unequal group results, by themselves, prove the process is illegitimate.
From that premise, the standard must be bent until the numbers look right. SPOTM rejects the premise. Unequal results can come from:
- different distributions of interest and ability
- different preparation
- culture and family
- discrimination (which should be forbidden as a rights violation)
- chance
Discrimination is a real evil when it is the initiation of force or the use of race/sex as a legal privilege. It is not proven by a gap alone. Treating every gap as a verdict on the standard is collectivist epistemology: the group’s score is treated as more real than the individual’s work.
3. Two kinds of “diversity”
| Kind | Relation to excellence |
|---|---|
| Open competition among individuals | Compatible; may increase the talent pool |
| Mandated representation by category | Competes with excellence; often wins |
The first is a larger search for the best. The second is a constraint on the search. You cannot maximize two independent objective functions at once. If representation is the constraint, excellence becomes the residual.
4. Who pays
The cost is not abstract.
- Students get a weaker teacher.
- Patients get a weaker clinician.
- Cities get weaker engineering.
- The person who did meet the bar is passed over.
- The person admitted under a lower bar is placed where the mismatch will show.
That last harm is often denied. It is still real. Putting someone in a role their preparation does not support is not kindness. It is a setup for failure, and it breeds cynicism about every member of the favored category who did earn the place.
5. Language that hides the trade
Watch for phrases that rename the sacrifice:
- “holistic review” when the holism is group identity
- “equity” when it means equal outcomes rather than equal rules
- “inclusion” when it means the standard must move
- “the old standard was biased” when the evidence is only that groups finished unevenly
Sometimes a standard is biased (irrelevant criteria, old-boy networks). Then the aligned move is to clean the standard, not to install a rival demographic test.
6. Alignment
SPOTM’s order is fixed:
- Reality and the requirements of the task
- Individual rights and color-blind law
- Voluntary association
Diversity as a political sacrament reverses that order. It makes the group image the One and treats excellence as the Many that must yield.
Short addition:
You can welcome anyone who can do the work. You cannot treat “anyone” as interchangeable with “whoever fills the chart.” The first is justice to individuals. The second is a ritual that uses individuals as paint.
No comments:
Post a Comment