The Impossible Dream of Equality
Dear Nat,
You strike a balanced note at the end of your message that I think is
absolutely appropriate. On the subject of heredity, you note that some portion
of intelligence does seem to be hereditary, or at least so many serious people
say. So while we should try to reduce inequality of opportunity, there will
always be some, since some people are born smarter, and that intelligence may
reproduce itself down the generations.
That doesn't mean we need dwell on the negative. As Lemann's narrative makes
clear, the current meritocratic sorting system has done a good deal to reduce
inequality of opportunity. The 1950s elite was based on blood and, to a much
larger extent, looks--things that are totally and overwhelmingly hereditary. F.
Scott Fitzgerald once remarked that the elite of his day consisted of animal
magnetism married to money. One of the virtues of the education-based elite of
ours is that it has reduced the influence of looks, magnetism, and social
polish, though it will never get rid of them.
Lemann also makes it clear that the current meritocratic system is far more
egalitarian than its intellectual founders, Chauncey and Conant, intended. They
wanted to create a small elite class of guardians who would serve the public
selflessly. That was elitist, and America tends to wash away elitist plans. It
was also naive, and reality tends to smash those notions. There is never going
to be a selfless class of guardians, no matter what Plato may have imagined.
One of the nice things about Lemann's story is the way it moves from Conant's
lofty writings down to the gritty struggles of politics and campaigns, showing
how the original idea--sorting people by scientific tests--was twisted by
events.
I finish this exchange more aware of the limitations of our current
meritocracy, but not moved to support radical changes to it. The SAT has opened
up opportunity for millions of people (Lemann would not disagree). But I think
it would be pushing things too far to make the sorts of changes Lemann hints at
in his conclusion. That would be to try to impose an overly egalitarian plan
onto a society that is interested in opportunity and striving. If there's one
thing we have learned this century, it is that you can't force-feed
egalitarianism on human beings.
Anyway, it's been an honor chatting with you about this, but now I've got to
toddle off and work on a review I'm writing on Frederick Law Olmsted for a
journal called The Public Interest . The editors there will skin me alive
if I miss my deadline.
All the best,
David
