In discussions about equality in workplaces and universities, few topics provoke as much disagreement as the use of targets or quotas to increase the representation of groups that have been historically underrepresented. Opponents argue that such measures violate the principle of merit: people should be selected because of what they can do, not because of who they are. This principle is deeply held, and any serious proposal must respect it.
The difficulty is that merit is rarely as neutral as the argument assumes. Judgments about ability are made by people, and people tend to favor those who resemble themselves in background or manner, often without noticing. A manager may sincerely believe that she is choosing the strongest candidate while unconsciously preferring someone who reminds her of herself. Criteria that appear objective, such as uninterrupted years of service or a certain style of self-presentation, may reflect the circumstances of those who designed them rather than real predictors of performance. If the process of selection contains such hidden bias, then choosing the best candidate may simply reproduce existing patterns.
This is why supporters regard targets as a corrective device rather than a departure from merit. By ensuring that qualified candidates from underrepresented groups are actually considered, they widen the pool from which talent is drawn. Moreover, a diverse group of decision-makers is often better at noticing risks and possibilities that a uniform group overlooks. In this view, fairness and performance are allies, not opponents. Setting a target can also force an organization to examine its procedures for the first time, which may be as valuable as any change in the numbers.
Critics nonetheless raise a fair concern: those who are chosen under such a system may be doubted by others, and may even doubt themselves. Such doubts, unfair as they are, can damage the confidence of the very people the policy is meant to support. Targets can also become a superficial substitute for deeper reform. If schools, families, and workplaces continue to discourage certain people from developing their abilities in the first place, changing the numbers at the top will not solve the underlying problem.
The wisest approach, then, is to treat targets as temporary measures, paired with efforts to remove the barriers that create imbalance, such as unclear promotion criteria and a lack of support for caregiving. If these measures succeed, they should eventually become unnecessary. The goal is not to replace merit with identity, but to build a system in which merit can be recognized wherever it exists. Fairness, after all, is not achieved by a single rule but by continuing attention to how decisions are actually made.
