Diversity and Merit.

Ulysses Alvarez Laviada
5 min readAug 14, 2018

A dialogue

Merit — So, I heard you are promoting diversity.

Diversity — That’s right. Diversity in merits.

Merit — You mean, you promote merits which have more diversity than merits?

Diversity — In a way, yes, the betterment of the fittest in merit sometimes has to undergo a backlash since merits have been concentrated predominantly in a race. Hence, we need merit to diversify and it cannot do it on its own.

Merit — You want to diversify me? You are just arbitrarily spreading me into low degrees of me.

Diversity — Initially, yes. Eventually, you will recover and reach new highs. Don’t you remember that you actually benefit at the beginning because of geographical privileges of some races?

Merit — Are you not being racist by trying to give more opportunities to an underprivileged race in the same way as the white race colonised the rest of the world?

Diversity — No exactly. It might look like that, but in principle it is not. All we want is create diversity of merits and since some races got lucky initially to develop abilities to pickup merits faster because of geographical advantages, it is time to give advantages to other races not because those other races should become better races, but because otherwise humans in general won’t improve due to lack of diversity.

Merit — So, you are going to give more opportunities to people without talents because of diversity?

Diversity — No. I am going to give more opportunities to talented people discriminated for their skin color.

Merit — What if the less discriminated has more talent?

Diversity — That would be the temporal sacrifice to achieve diversity of high merits.

Merit — Of high merits? You won’t get a society of excellence that way, but a society with diversity of low talented people.

Diversity — For a while, yes. But eventually the phenotype of those who have lived historically oppressed will peak and reach even higher excellences, actually in both, the discriminated and the non discriminated races.

Merit — How are you planning to achieve that?

Diversity — We won’t just flip the coin to benefit exclusively the underprivileged races. We will benefit both, but put more emphasis in benefiting the underprivileged for a while until we start witnessing that the previously underprivileged race start naturally gaining merits as equally faster.

Merit — For a while? Are you just being racist by focusing on race to determine who has access to opportunities and is able to gain merits?

Diversity — As I said, it might look like that but it is not. We are not favouring a race because we think that race is better, but because out of a racist assumption in the past some races have had their phenotype systematically damaged and so, only by exposing the discriminated races more and more to the opportunities of gaining merits even when their phenotype are already damaged, eventually they will start healing and allow to be in the same good shape of those who have not suffered centuries of exploitation.

Merit — Then, you actually admit that there are biological racial differences?

Diversity — Well, there are, but the ones which really matter to fix inequalities are not based of our DNA, but on our phenotype. Especially, when an entire race has been systematically discriminated over centuries.

Merit — Wouldn’t you damage the phenotype of the previously privileged race by not allowing their real talents to flourish?

Diversity — Unfortunately, there will be some unwanted casualties and yes, we will obstruct the development of some great talents from the white and Indian races.

Merit — Is that how you create diversity of merits? You are not only allowing some people with lower talents to gain access to merits, but also truncating real talents for the sake of diversity. How are you certain these policies will produce beneficial outcome for all and how would it deal with equality without the heavy price of rewarding less talented people?

Diversity — Exposure to great opportunities even if you are not great is the only way we have to repair the damage caused to the phenotype of those who have been enslaved for centuries.

Merit — We will be likely to get a very unproductive and inefficient society out of your paradigm of diversity.

Diversity — We don’t have any better one right now out of the existent paradigm.

Merit — What is in your view the existing paradigm?

Diversity — A heavily politicised “live and let live.”

Merit — I think the existing paradigm is precisely the opposite, political correctness is everywhere.

Diversity — We can’t go on with a society in which some races have a privileged phenotype.

Merit — But how can you prove that to be connected with race?

Diversity — Look at black people in America and in the world.

Merit — So, you think that racial differences are only related to exploitation?

Diversity — No in general, but the one that matters, yes.

Merit — Why the other ones don’t matter?

Diversity — Because they don’t determine merits.

Merit — Which ones determine and which ones don’t?

Diversity — The ones related to cognition and to emotions. In discriminated races those ones are damaged by centuries of exploitation.

Merit — You believe that by giving more access to opportunities to a discriminated race you will change that race phenotype and improve their capacity for greater talent?

Diversity — Yes.

Merit — At the expense of another race? Isn’t this a zero-sum-game?

Diversity — Partially, yes, but overall it will benefit all races.

Merit — How?

Diversity — By creating more diversity of merits.

Merit — At the expense of the merits quality?

Diversity — The quality might suffer an initial drawback.

Merit — Is that really the best you got? Merits will suffer a discrimination similar to the one suffered by the discriminated races you mentioned.

Diversity — Do you have a better solution?

Merit — Yes, reward people more for their merits and talents than for their race or the color of their skins.

Ulysses Alvarez Laviada

Genuine tragedies in the world are not conflicts between right and wrong. They are conflicts between two rights. Friedrich Hegel.