Love is hate. War is peace. And merit-based hiring is unfair. 

So says the American Psychological Association (APA) about the latter. I have no idea what they think about the first two, but I wouldn't be surprised if they agree with those oxymoronic claims, as well.

While the rational among us have become somewhat unaffected — I tend to think of it as unable to be surprised — by the insane world of woke: diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), gender fluidity, transsexualism, and self-selected pronouns, the notion that hiring a job applicant based on his or her qualifications for the job is somehow "unfair" is preposterous. Yet, here we are.

According to the APA's press release about its new research:

People from across the political spectrum also are more likely to support programs that encourage socioeconomic diversity after learning about the effects of social class and low income, according to the research, published online in the Journal of Experimental Psychology: General.

See what they did, there? 

"People from across the political spectrum" suggests that both liberals and conservatives equally view focusing on socioeconomic diversity as more important than job qualifications— or at least, just as important.

Lead researcher Daniela Goya-Tocchetto, PhD, an assistant professor of organization and human resources at the University at Buffalo-State University of New York, put it this way:

Socioeconomic disadvantages early in life can undermine educational achievement, test scores, and work experiences. In this way, inequality can undermine equal opportunity. Yet when we evaluate the fairness of merit-based processes, people tend to ignore this broader context and the effects of inequality.

Hold the bus, professor. Equal opportunity does not mean equal results. And, yes, landing a job that should have gone to someone more qualified is a result — an unjust result, at that. So, professor, tell us how fair it is to the more qualified candidate who didn't get the job.

Here's more:

The researchers conducted five online experiments with a total of more than 3,300 participants. In two experiments, participants read about a merit-based hiring or promotion process where the most qualified candidate would be selected. 

Half of the participants weren’t given any additional information, while the other half were informed about the past socioeconomic disadvantages [of] one candidate and the advantages [of] another candidate. Both liberal and conservative participants who received the background information perceived the merit-based hiring or promotion process as less fair with less equal opportunity.

In two additional experiments, participants also found merit-based hiring or promotions to be less fair after learning how low income can hinder educational opportunities and career advancement.

A final experiment found that knowledge about socioeconomic disparities increased support for hiring programs that seek to foster social class diversity, such as removing the names of prestigious universities or companies from resumes and making prior internships a lesser requirement for being hired.

Again, I call BS on equating the views of liberals and conservatives in the study. If the percentages of each group were provided, I'd reconsider. Otherwise, no.

Goya-Tocchetto said the studies didn’t include race as a factor, and that the results might have been different if race had been the focus instead of socioeconomic disadvantages. She also said:

Members of marginalized racial groups tend to experience socioeconomic disadvantages more often than members of privileged racial groups, and the negative consequences of these disadvantages can be even worse for racial minorities. Focusing on socioeconomic considerations could garner more support and still help address racial inequality.

Again, see what they did, there?

If people generally believe that a higher percentage of racial minorities are impacted by socioeconomic disadvantages than people of privileged (white) racial groups, might their (liberals') responses be skewed, without the need to mention race? 

The Bottom Line

Look, I'm all in for equality — I always have been. But again, equal opportunity does not and should not be bastardized to mean equal results. Yet, that's where we're headed, solely for the sake of diversity, equality, and inclusion.

Even worse, giving a job to a less qualified applicant than the best candidate for the job neither helps the man or woman who got the job nor America's ingenuity on the world stage.

SEE MORE:

Harvard University Signals It Has No Intention of Obeying the Supreme Court's Anti-Racism Decision

The Soft Bigotry of Democrat Expectations

To Root Out Racism, Elite High School for Science and Technology Ends Merit-Based Admissions