meritocracy

College Admissions

I thought

I understood

the assignment.

Three 

Ivy presidents

(notably, women)

were interrogated

by Congresswoman

Elise Sefanik

about anti

semitic

rhetoric

on campus.

The rest 

of us

watched,

dumbfounded,

while the three

were hounded

as they sounded

pathetic.

Penn

stepped down

soon thereafter

and then 

the mission

to get Harvard’s

resignation

broadened

to include

plagarization.

Huh?

Now I’m 

confused

as

The Right

is amused.

Is President

Gay

as incompetent

as they say?

She (and the others)

certainly failed

to stand

against hate

in a clear

and forceful

manner.

But the issue

morphed

and quickly

dwarfed 

the inherent

problems

of free speech.

Now it’s clear

that the smear

was in play

before

any admissions.

All the way

from k

through 12,

book bans

and some 

topics

are prey 

to the optics

of so-called

conservative

victories.

And higher

ed

is losing

cred

when

boards

revamp

campuses.

New College,

“too liberal”,

has become

undone,

replacing curriculum

and extras

begun,

as faculty

and students

have already

run

to more 

hospitable

schools.

The tools

of The Right

insist on

a fight

against

inclusion.

Their claim

of exclusion

is construed

as intrusion

of those

people

and ideas

lacking

“merit”.

Offended

by difference

and fueled

by belligerence 

creating

inference

of incompetence

and interference

of values,

twisting

DEI

and Critical

Race Theory

into some

nefarious

notions

of promotions

of people

undeserving

(because only

certain people

are deserving).

The subtext

seems to be

that white

and/or male

are merit-worthy,

and what 

is now called

elite

is not

because 

of the rot

of a culture

changing.

“But her 

plagiarism”

reminds me

of another claim:

“But her

emails….”

as she fails

not on merit

but on whatever

they declare

it to be.

The suspicions

against women

and  any other 

minority

in positions

of upward

mobility

in a facility

deemed

liberal ,

especially

those at 

or near

the top,

will be fodder

for politicians

whether omissions

or admissions

of guilt

even apply.

Somehow

social justice

has been

perverted

by one side

to collide

with merit,

and subverted

to an inverted

definition

of bias 

against.

Inclusion

is now 

exclusion.

The ones

who used

to benefit

now see fit

to destroy

elite institutions

and upend

people’s lives.

The mascot

for team

defiance

whose reliance

on winning

at any cost,

while

aligning

with bitter

resentment,

is ascendent

to the most

elite

postion 

of all.

His Wharton

degree

could not be

based

on merit.

Admittedly,

and shamefully,

hypocrisy 

and conspiracy

are embraced

as winning

strategies

to counter

the culture

of decency

and meritocracy.

Chopped

I love watching Chopped. I watch regular seasons; Chopped Champions; Chopped All-Stars; Chopped Grill Masters; marathons, and I confess, I watch re-runs. This cooking competition is endlessly enjoyable to watch, not only for the spectacular plates, which, after all, we can only see, but in its utterly simple structure that allows so much creativity and brilliance to be presented. It also speaks to our cultural ideals–not just our ideal meals.

In case you are one of the few who are not yet acquainted with Chopped, allow me to introduce you. It is a TV Food Network cooking show with four chefs competing for a $10,000.00 prize. There are three rounds: appetizer,entree, and dessert. In each round, the chefs are given a basket of three to five ingredients (usually four), all of which must be used in some form in their dishes. The chefs also have access to pantry and refrigerator ingredients, but the focus must be on the basket ingredients, which are not usually prepared together. Each round is timed: twenty minutes for the appetizer round, and thirty minutes each for the entree and dessert rounds. The competing chefs are judged by a panel of three renowned chefs who critique the dishes and decide based on presentation, taste, and creativity. The judges must determine which competing chef must be eliminated from the next round. Who will be chopped? Thus, the appetizer round starts with four chefs competing. The entree round has three remaining chefs competing. By the dessert round, the last two competing chefs will be judged not only on their desserts, but on their entire meals. The winner gets $10,000.00.

The show is so enticing because it appeals to many of our appetites. On the most basic level, Chopped is a cooking competition, so while it may not actually fill us with food, we have a natural desire for food. (DO NOT WATCH IF YOU ARE PHYSICALLY HUNGRY!) It is also exciting competition and “feeds” the part of us that enjoys sports (and prize money). Beyond the obvious, the show has evolved to embrace certain features that we strive for as a culture. We hunger for rules that apply to all. We thirst for excellence and consideration. We savor the go-getter.  We crave beauty and inspiration. Technique matters, but ultimately it has to taste good.

Chopped is a meritocracy. The chefs who compete,while mostly American, are truly a cross section of America.  Talented, extremely hard-working people, regardless of background or even current job title, compete. Sometimes, when the chefs are immigrants, or new residents, their incredibly hard work and overwhelming desire to succeed is inspiring. Those who are competing from (and occasionally for) other countries, are in love with Chopped, and want to participate in that bit of America and “bring it home”. Young, not-so-young, male, female, white, non-white, straight, gay, professional, amateur…all compete in the Chopped kitchen, as long as they prove their abilities and play by the rules.

The main rule is to use all of the basket ingredients. As any Chopped lover knows, however, it is never enough to merely have the basket ingredients in the prepared dish. The goal is to transform the ingredients. This is the most inspiring part of the show, and it speaks to our cultural aspirations of transformation. How can we transform seemingly disparate elements?

Sure Chopped is fun cooking competition, but it is also nourishing. Those of us who can devour a Chopped marathon, appreciate the fortitude of the contestants. We sympathize with their often difficult life circumstances and admire their resourcefulness, not only in the kitchen, but in doing what they can do to improve their lives and the lives of their families and communities. This theme is emphasized on Chopped, and yes, gives Chopped it’s distinctive flavor. We admire these traits also, and are delighted to see excellence showcased with a dose of deference to earned authority and wisdom, as well as creativity, beauty and transformation amidst healthy competition. These are the very traits that we parents and teachers and other leaders seek to instill in our children.

Ok. So Chopped is just a cooking show, but the themes are also a recipe for success; for transformation. Let’s get cooking!