Please consider subscribing to Justice ReDesigned. It is free when choosing the no-pay option. All articles and podcasts will be delivered directly to your email. Thank you!
Host’s Note
This podcast is part of an ongoing Justice ReDesigned series examining the legal, economic, and institutional dimensions of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI). Each installment addresses a different layer of the debate — from merit and neutrality to profitability and governance — with the aim of separating rhetoric from reality.
In this episode of Justice ReDesigned, Steve Teske takes on one of the most powerful—and misunderstood—ideas in American public life: meritocracy.
For decades, the phrase “hiring based on merit” has been used as a rhetorical counterweight to diversity, equity, and inclusion. But what if the real question isn’t whether merit matters, but whether our systems actually recognize merit in the first place?
Teske explores the hidden assumptions behind the meritocracy debate and explains why the conversation often collapses into a false choice between competence and inclusion. Drawing on historical examples, legal frameworks, and economic research, he argues that true meritocracy requires something many institutions still resist: structured systems designed to identify talent across all backgrounds.
This episode examines:
• Why “meritocracy” in practice has often operated through informal networks rather than objective standards• How structured hiring and evaluation systems strengthen merit rather than undermine it• The historical lesson of the Tuskegee Airmen and what it reveals about hidden talent• Why the real threat to merit is not inclusion—but unexamined assumptions about who qualifies as “meritorious”
The conversation ultimately reframes the debate: the goal is not to abandon merit, but to build systems capable of recognizing it wherever it exists.
Because the real myth isn’t merit itself.
It’s the belief that our institutions have always measured it fairly.
