WHO'S QUALIFIED?

In this bracing look at ways to create equal opportunity in education and jobs, Guinier and Sturm, law professors at Harvard and Columbia, respectively, argue that affirmative action is usually grafted onto a fake meritocracy, resulting in an artificial trade-off between merit and justice. They urge schools and businesses to determine what talents are truly desirable in participants, and recommend gauging those abilities via performance-based evaluations. Following commentary on their argument by a dozen mostly like-minded scholars, Guinier and Sturm weigh in with a brief, concluding response. While some of the scholars doubt the ubiquity of testing, most attack the validity of tests as screening devices, arguing that they are poor predictors of future performance because they fail to validate desirable but less quantifiable skills, like creativity, flexibility and team-playing. While some contributors are leery of the potentially discriminatory downside of dropping "objective" tools like tests in favor of more subjective procedures, most would be happy with an additive approach—the more assessment tools, the better. The only dissent here is fairly oblique: Derrick Bell, in his essay "Love's Labor Lost?" is quietly pessimistic, exploring why whites persist in being racists, while Michael Piore muses on the putative efficiency of capitalist allocation of resources. Still, the lively format keeps this discussion focused and engaging. (Aug.)

Forecast:This feisty little addition to Beacon's New Democracy Forum Series shows commercial promise within its niche. A three-city author tour should help attract media coverage, especially if some of the respondents make appearances as well.