This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/13/bbc-chair-merit-top-jobs-talent-gender-bias-connections

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
A BBC chair appointed on merit? Might as well believe in the tooth fairy Appointed on merit? Might as well believe in the tooth fairy
(about 4 hours later)
In the debate around John Whittingdale's warning to David Cameron not to "push through" a female candidate to chair the BBC Trust, I was reminded that when I hear the term meritocracy asserted by someone high up the chain of command, I may not reach for my revolver, but I certainly roll my eyes.In the debate around John Whittingdale's warning to David Cameron not to "push through" a female candidate to chair the BBC Trust, I was reminded that when I hear the term meritocracy asserted by someone high up the chain of command, I may not reach for my revolver, but I certainly roll my eyes.
The reported determination of Cameron to see a woman in the role – challenged by Whittingdale as chair of the culture select committee – should raise an eyebrow, given his dismal record of appointing women to senior positions in government, not to mention his dispatch-box disparaging of female colleagues. However, to oppose the idea of a female appointee by insisting that decisions be made "on merit", as though all other things are equal, illustrates how much credence is still given to merit as an abstract ideal – divorced from any socioeconomic factors that might affect the field of candidates for any given role, and the complacent assumptions inherent in this.The reported determination of Cameron to see a woman in the role – challenged by Whittingdale as chair of the culture select committee – should raise an eyebrow, given his dismal record of appointing women to senior positions in government, not to mention his dispatch-box disparaging of female colleagues. However, to oppose the idea of a female appointee by insisting that decisions be made "on merit", as though all other things are equal, illustrates how much credence is still given to merit as an abstract ideal – divorced from any socioeconomic factors that might affect the field of candidates for any given role, and the complacent assumptions inherent in this.
Of course appointments should be made purely on merit. But – especially in public life – they are frequently made on the basis of connections: social and cultural capital accrued via old-school ties, college dining societies, nepotism, networking, and biases subconscious or overt. Nevertheless, those at the top of politics, business, media and the arts hold fast – understandably – to the notion that they have got there through their own hard graft and dazzling talent: their "merit".Of course appointments should be made purely on merit. But – especially in public life – they are frequently made on the basis of connections: social and cultural capital accrued via old-school ties, college dining societies, nepotism, networking, and biases subconscious or overt. Nevertheless, those at the top of politics, business, media and the arts hold fast – understandably – to the notion that they have got there through their own hard graft and dazzling talent: their "merit".
To those who believe that we inhabit a meritocracy, the position of those in charge is explained as the result of what seems least troubling and most in keeping with democracy: being the most suitable and competent people for the job. The rest of us might look askance at this assumption, requiring as it does, for example, the acceptance that the unqualified George Osborne is the man most capable of steering the British economy through perilous waters. Lower down the scale one could cite the quotidian grumbling in workplaces across the land from underlings hamstrung by their less competent bosses – a tendency observed by Richard Sennett among others, though we can surely all supply examples.To those who believe that we inhabit a meritocracy, the position of those in charge is explained as the result of what seems least troubling and most in keeping with democracy: being the most suitable and competent people for the job. The rest of us might look askance at this assumption, requiring as it does, for example, the acceptance that the unqualified George Osborne is the man most capable of steering the British economy through perilous waters. Lower down the scale one could cite the quotidian grumbling in workplaces across the land from underlings hamstrung by their less competent bosses – a tendency observed by Richard Sennett among others, though we can surely all supply examples.
To accept that society functions on a purely meritocratic basis requires the same blend of woolly optimism and wilful blindness that Reaganites invested in "trickle-down economics". Curiously, champions of meritocracy are usually detractors of socialism, which gets dismissed as "a nice idea, sure, but it simply wouldn't work in practice, what with human nature being just too venal, greedy and corrupt". Yet the equally optimistic myth of meritocracy endures, even though in a country governed by an Etonian elite – the cream of society only in the sense that they're rich, white and bad for your health – it seems as quaint as believing in the tooth fairy.To accept that society functions on a purely meritocratic basis requires the same blend of woolly optimism and wilful blindness that Reaganites invested in "trickle-down economics". Curiously, champions of meritocracy are usually detractors of socialism, which gets dismissed as "a nice idea, sure, but it simply wouldn't work in practice, what with human nature being just too venal, greedy and corrupt". Yet the equally optimistic myth of meritocracy endures, even though in a country governed by an Etonian elite – the cream of society only in the sense that they're rich, white and bad for your health – it seems as quaint as believing in the tooth fairy.
Attempts at meritocracy are undermined not merely by explicit sexist or racist bias when choosing candidates, but by long-term inequality of opportunity, which affects the pool of candidates in the first place. These endemic and structural inequalities are unlikely to be fixed by the BBC Trust opting for a chairwoman. The type of "1% feminism" that decries the appointing of an upper-class male chief executive, as opposed to one who is white, upper-class and female, does the disadvantaged few favours by campaigning merely to reverse this discrimination. Inequality is not exclusively confined to matters of gender, but is also affected by class, race, age and ability, and their combined impact on an individual's educational opportunities, prospects and aspirations.Attempts at meritocracy are undermined not merely by explicit sexist or racist bias when choosing candidates, but by long-term inequality of opportunity, which affects the pool of candidates in the first place. These endemic and structural inequalities are unlikely to be fixed by the BBC Trust opting for a chairwoman. The type of "1% feminism" that decries the appointing of an upper-class male chief executive, as opposed to one who is white, upper-class and female, does the disadvantaged few favours by campaigning merely to reverse this discrimination. Inequality is not exclusively confined to matters of gender, but is also affected by class, race, age and ability, and their combined impact on an individual's educational opportunities, prospects and aspirations.
Under austerity, as inequality worsens and social mobility grinds to a halt in its wake, the level playing field that meritocracy requires is becoming even less of a likelihood. The effects of this across politics and the professions are too glaring to deny. Barbara Ellen's recent lament in the wake of Bob Hoskins' death for young working-class actors edged out by the posh identified a specific example of a trend in which an individual's success is increasingly dependent on family connections – and on having the independent wealth necessary to support oneself in precarious freelance work or unpaid internships – rather than on merit.Under austerity, as inequality worsens and social mobility grinds to a halt in its wake, the level playing field that meritocracy requires is becoming even less of a likelihood. The effects of this across politics and the professions are too glaring to deny. Barbara Ellen's recent lament in the wake of Bob Hoskins' death for young working-class actors edged out by the posh identified a specific example of a trend in which an individual's success is increasingly dependent on family connections – and on having the independent wealth necessary to support oneself in precarious freelance work or unpaid internships – rather than on merit.
This particular demonstration of the myth of meritocracy may now be commanding broadsheet attention, but it has been obvious for some time to working-class people attempting to establish themselves in media or politics as well as creative careers. Placed alongside the obscene disparities in wealth, opportunity and quality of life that austerity is exacerbating, it makes the meritocratic idea that anyone can succeed by virtue of talent and hard work look ever more dubious. As an argument for maintaining the status quo, however, meritocracy seems about as credible a concept as the divine right of kings.This particular demonstration of the myth of meritocracy may now be commanding broadsheet attention, but it has been obvious for some time to working-class people attempting to establish themselves in media or politics as well as creative careers. Placed alongside the obscene disparities in wealth, opportunity and quality of life that austerity is exacerbating, it makes the meritocratic idea that anyone can succeed by virtue of talent and hard work look ever more dubious. As an argument for maintaining the status quo, however, meritocracy seems about as credible a concept as the divine right of kings.