ISSUE XXV: Meritocracy

M e

r i

t

o c

r

a c

y HUMANITÉ ISSUE 25

EDITOR’S NOTE “To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment.” — Ralph Waldo Emerson Meritocracy promises a simple equation in which ability and effort equal reward. Yet in reality, the story is more tangled. Behind every achievement lies a web of structural advantages, invisible boosts, unspoken barriers, and unevenly distributed opportunities. In an era obsessed with resumés, rankings, and measurable excellence, it becomes increasingly important to question what we label as “earned.”

So, how do we distinguish genuine merit from the circumstances that elevate or suppress it? In this issue, we examine the promise and pitfalls of meritocracy, exploring how it shapes our ambitions, our identities, and our understanding of fairness.

Humanité

EDITOR’S NOTE “To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment.” — Ralph Waldo Emerson Meritocracy promises a simple equation in which ability and effort equal reward. Yet in reality, the story is more tangled. Behind every achievement lies a web of structural advantages, invisible boosts, unspoken barriers, and unevenly distributed opportunities. In an era obsessed with resumés, rankings, and measurable excellence, it becomes increasingly important to question what we label as “earned.”

So, how do we distinguish genuine merit from the circumstances that elevate or suppress it? In this issue, we examine the promise and pitfalls of meritocracy, exploring how it shapes our ambitions, our identities, and our understanding of fairness.

Humanité

Diversity Equity Inclusivity

By Regina Kim Layout by Regina Kim

Workplace DEI digital art Haeun (Regina) Kim

I

n practice, the policy of DEI in the workplace is intended to build respectful environments with diverse ideas and voices.

Oftentimes, this is achieved by ensuring that people from marginalized communities are represented, including but not limited to racialized people, disabled people, queer people, etc.

“DEI” is an umbrella term that encompasses all policies instituted in an effort to ensure fair treatment for historically underrepresent minorities, and had been recently rising in workplaces across the United States.

However, corporate DEI policies are currently facing extreme backlash. The criticism stems largely from concern about meritocracy, and the perpetuated belief that DEI allows unqualified individuals to join the workforce, leading to lower

standards or even reverse discrimination against qualified workers who are overrepresented in the workplace.

Frequently, members belonging to “dominant’ groups have argued that identifying as a minority now trumps skill in the modern job market.

Upon President Trump’s presidency, several companies have rolled back their DEI policies in an attempt to avoid controversy. This change follows a larger trend, as progressive ideas have faced increasing criticism from the administration. Federal workers with jobs related to DEI intiatives have also faced mass layoffs.

Despite the controversy, around DEI, it remains an important facet of the workplace to consider.

Diversity Equity Inclusivity

By Regina Kim Layout by Regina Kim

Workplace DEI digital art Haeun (Regina) Kim

I

n practice, the policy of DEI in the workplace is intended to build respectful environments with diverse ideas and voices.

Oftentimes, this is achieved by ensuring that people from marginalized communities are represented, including but not limited to racialized people, disabled people, queer people, etc.

“DEI” is an umbrella term that encompasses all policies instituted in an effort to ensure fair treatment for historically underrepresent minorities, and had been recently rising in workplaces across the United States.

However, corporate DEI policies are currently facing extreme backlash. The criticism stems largely from concern about meritocracy, and the perpetuated belief that DEI allows unqualified individuals to join the workforce, leading to lower

standards or even reverse discrimination against qualified workers who are overrepresented in the workplace.

Frequently, members belonging to “dominant’ groups have argued that identifying as a minority now trumps skill in the modern job market.

Upon President Trump’s presidency, several companies have rolled back their DEI policies in an attempt to avoid controversy. This change follows a larger trend, as progressive ideas have faced increasing criticism from the administration. Federal workers with jobs related to DEI intiatives have also faced mass layoffs.

Despite the controversy, around DEI, it remains an important facet of the workplace to consider.

MENTAL COST OF MERITOCRACY

By Claire Baek Layout by Regina Kim

M

eritocracy is an idea that achieve their goals. However, in the drives societies in the modern long-run, people cannot pursue world.world.

It promises a fair society their goals with this nonstop where success depends not on investment. This self-competition to become conditions at birth or wealth, but on tends leading to talent and hard work. The principle counterproductive, that effort determines destiny has chronic stress that eventually results been taught across classrooms and in overall diminished performance corporations. On the surface, it due to exhaustion. Aside from the perspective, this seems very empowering—yet achievement beneath this hopeful vision lies a relentless cycle can impose a profound sense of disillusionment growing psychological burden.

One of the deepest costs of and mental health issues like meritocracy is the pressure to prove burnout and anxiety.

Another cost lies in how one’s worth constantly. When value is measured by performance, rest meritocracy reshapes the meaning begins to feel like failure, as it feels of failure. If success is said to like it is not being contributed to the depend only on effort, then failure effort that will lead to better becomes a sign of personal performance.

Over time, this weakness. This can lead to intense relentless self-competition breeds self-blame, driving people to see burnout and anxiety. In the short their setbacks not as natural parts of growth, but as reflections of their term, this motivation may help one

character. In reality, factors like background, opportunity, among more still play large roles in outcomes. Yet meritocracy can hide these inequalities, convincing individuals that every shortcoming is a true reflection of their own fault alone.

This can have many implications.

One is that a strict meritocratic mindset without sufficient compassion can subtly overshadow appropriate human connections on a societal level. If people believe success is always earned, people may assume that struggles are always deserved. This can fuel a misunderstanding or lack of compassion toward those facing structural barriers or difficult circumstances. It becomes easier to

overlook inequality when it is believed that outcomes are perfect reflections of one’s efforts and personal merits.

Ultimately, the mental costs of meritocracy lie in how it subtly shapes both our self-perceptions and understanding of others. A strict meritocratic mindset may alter perceptions of what counts as acceptable progress, possibly burden us, and lead us to misunderstand others.

It is important to be mindful of these mental costs and avoid feeling never enough—because our growth is not always linear and setbacks are a natural part of becoming who we are.

MENTAL COST OF MERITOCRACY

By Claire Baek Layout by Regina Kim

M

eritocracy is an idea that achieve their goals. However, in the drives societies in the modern long-run, people cannot pursue world.world.

It promises a fair society their goals with this nonstop where success depends not on investment. This self-competition to become conditions at birth or wealth, but on tends leading to talent and hard work. The principle counterproductive, that effort determines destiny has chronic stress that eventually results been taught across classrooms and in overall diminished performance corporations. On the surface, it due to exhaustion. Aside from the perspective, this seems very empowering—yet achievement beneath this hopeful vision lies a relentless cycle can impose a profound sense of disillusionment growing psychological burden.

One of the deepest costs of and mental health issues like meritocracy is the pressure to prove burnout and anxiety.

Another cost lies in how one’s worth constantly. When value is measured by performance, rest meritocracy reshapes the meaning begins to feel like failure, as it feels of failure. If success is said to like it is not being contributed to the depend only on effort, then failure effort that will lead to better becomes a sign of personal performance.

Over time, this weakness. This can lead to intense relentless self-competition breeds self-blame, driving people to see burnout and anxiety. In the short their setbacks not as natural parts of growth, but as reflections of their term, this motivation may help one

character. In reality, factors like background, opportunity, among more still play large roles in outcomes. Yet meritocracy can hide these inequalities, convincing individuals that every shortcoming is a true reflection of their own fault alone.

This can have many implications.

One is that a strict meritocratic mindset without sufficient compassion can subtly overshadow appropriate human connections on a societal level. If people believe success is always earned, people may assume that struggles are always deserved. This can fuel a misunderstanding or lack of compassion toward those facing structural barriers or difficult circumstances. It becomes easier to

overlook inequality when it is believed that outcomes are perfect reflections of one’s efforts and personal merits.

Ultimately, the mental costs of meritocracy lie in how it subtly shapes both our self-perceptions and understanding of others. A strict meritocratic mindset may alter perceptions of what counts as acceptable progress, possibly burden us, and lead us to misunderstand others.

It is important to be mindful of these mental costs and avoid feeling never enough—because our growth is not always linear and setbacks are a natural part of becoming who we are.

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION

By Regina Kim Layout by Regina Kim

D

iversity, equity, and inclusivity policies extend

to education a well in the form of “affirmative action,” a college admissions policy designed to end and correct the effects of discrimination against underrepresented racial, ethnic, or gender groups. Colleges would consider race as one of many elements in a holistic review to ensure a diverse student body to counter specific barriers.

However, in a 2023 Supreme Court ruling (Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard), race was prohibited as a specific, deciding factor in admissions, significantly limiting affirmative action.

However, the ruling did not prohibit implicit racial considerations, using information

gathered from Common App essays or extracurriculars. In this way, they may examine how race has impacted their live without explicitly using it for admissions decisions.

Some hope that this move will encourage a stronger focus on socioeconomic divides and disadvantaged groups rather than racial divides. However, others believe that this choice is a step back. Particularly for elite colleges, where admission is already extremely selective, they claim that the unavoidable disadvantages of belonging to certain minorities will be penalized.

Affirmative action has called meritocracy in college admissions into question, both by its presence and absence.

Admissions digital art Haeun (Regina) Kim

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION

By Regina Kim Layout by Regina Kim

D

iversity, equity, and inclusivity policies extend

to education a well in the form of “affirmative action,” a college admissions policy designed to end and correct the effects of discrimination against underrepresented racial, ethnic, or gender groups. Colleges would consider race as one of many elements in a holistic review to ensure a diverse student body to counter specific barriers.

However, in a 2023 Supreme Court ruling (Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard), race was prohibited as a specific, deciding factor in admissions, significantly limiting affirmative action.

However, the ruling did not prohibit implicit racial considerations, using information

gathered from Common App essays or extracurriculars. In this way, they may examine how race has impacted their live without explicitly using it for admissions decisions.

Some hope that this move will encourage a stronger focus on socioeconomic divides and disadvantaged groups rather than racial divides. However, others believe that this choice is a step back. Particularly for elite colleges, where admission is already extremely selective, they claim that the unavoidable disadvantages of belonging to certain minorities will be penalized.

Affirmative action has called meritocracy in college admissions into question, both by its presence and absence.

Admissions digital art Haeun (Regina) Kim

AI and Meritocracy

By Austin Chung Layout by Regina Kim

M

eritocracy is a system where advancement is based on ability and effort rather than privilege. In many places around the world, especially in developed, urbanized nations such as the US, there is some degree of meritocracy, whether that is at home, workplace, or the overall economy. The increasing use of AI, however, continues to drastically change society, influencing who gets jobs, promotions, or even scholarships. While use of AI must be regulated thoroughly, it may also provide opportunities for fair evaluation and expose biases.

AI can make merit-based systems more objective and efficient. For one, most humans, whether they are aware of it or not, possess preconceptions about people based on factors such as gender, race, or background, which may disrupt the objective evaluation of one’s merit.

AI tools, however, can assess skills and experience objectively without being influenced by biases or stereotypes, specifically in areas where a certain skill can be objectively put into numbers.

Furthermore, use of AI would allow for more efficient algorithms in people’s learning, as they process

Using AI will help simplify a lot of the vague boundaries and guidelines caused by the differences in how one determines a person’s merit.

However, some subjectivity despite a merit-based system may be important. Solely relying on AI for a merit-based system also means significant risk, as such a system has never been in place before and may bring many complications. Hard skills, such as simple arithmetic speed or scores on a test, may be easily quantifiable; however, soft skills are much harder to put into numbers, such as creativity, empathy, or social insight, which

may appear differently for each individual. Even if there was a method to properly quantify these skills, evaluating everyone on the same rigid scale would also ignore the individual’s unique identity— and therefore skills—which may be more useful in some areas than others. Furthermore, determining a method to quantify these soft skills would require people to first create a rigid and working scale, which also may bring about bias.

AI and Meritocracy

By Austin Chung Layout by Regina Kim

M

eritocracy is a system where advancement is based on ability and effort rather than privilege. In many places around the world, especially in developed, urbanized nations such as the US, there is some degree of meritocracy, whether that is at home, workplace, or the overall economy. The increasing use of AI, however, continues to drastically change society, influencing who gets jobs, promotions, or even scholarships. While use of AI must be regulated thoroughly, it may also provide opportunities for fair evaluation and expose biases.

AI can make merit-based systems more objective and efficient. For one, most humans, whether they are aware of it or not, possess preconceptions about people based on factors such as gender, race, or background, which may disrupt the objective evaluation of one’s merit.

AI tools, however, can assess skills and experience objectively without being influenced by biases or stereotypes, specifically in areas where a certain skill can be objectively put into numbers.

Furthermore, use of AI would allow for more efficient algorithms in people’s learning, as they process

Using AI will help simplify a lot of the vague boundaries and guidelines caused by the differences in how one determines a person’s merit.

However, some subjectivity despite a merit-based system may be important. Solely relying on AI for a merit-based system also means significant risk, as such a system has never been in place before and may bring many complications. Hard skills, such as simple arithmetic speed or scores on a test, may be easily quantifiable; however, soft skills are much harder to put into numbers, such as creativity, empathy, or social insight, which

may appear differently for each individual. Even if there was a method to properly quantify these skills, evaluating everyone on the same rigid scale would also ignore the individual’s unique identity— and therefore skills—which may be more useful in some areas than others. Furthermore, determining a method to quantify these soft skills would require people to first create a rigid and working scale, which also may bring about bias.

IMBALANCE OF POWER

By Arin Lee Layout by Grace Lee

The One Who Succeeds digital art Arin Lee

IMBALANCE OF POWER

By Arin Lee Layout by Grace Lee

The One Who Succeeds digital art Arin Lee

MASTHEAD President: Grace Lee Vice President: Yeonjae Kim Copy Editors: Russell Jin, Charlotte Kim Art Editor: Regina Kim Public Relations Managers: Zoe Chang, Woojin Cho

WRITERS Claire Baek Zoe Chang Woojin Cho Austin Chung Doyeon Kim Claire Shin Jacob Sung

ART Regina Kim

LAYOUT Zoe Chang Charlotte Kim Haeun (Regina) Kim