Today in “Science”: American Psychological Association Study Asserts ‘Hiring Most Qualified Candidate’ may be ‘Unfair’


by Leslie Eastman at

There used to be a time when scientists strove to gather hard data, rationally assess evidence, and develop theories that helped us better understand our world.

Good times, my friends, good times.

We now live in the era of the ideological capture of science. The only science that is permitted is the science that supports political narratives and agendas.

As “Diversity-Equity-Inclusion” permeates our institutions of higher learning, those who promote this rebranded racism seek “scientific” support for ignoring job candidates that may have more talent and fewer instances of plagiarizing work.

To aid in the effort, the ultra-woke American Psychological Association now claims that “hiring the most qualified candidate might be unfair” based on one of its recent studies.

The study, titled “Can Selecting the Most Qualified Candidate Be Unfair?,” examined people’s perceptions of merit-based hiring after learning more about the socioeconomic status of potential workers.

While previewing the results, it argued that hiring the most qualified candidate could contribute to more inequality.

“Fairness heuristic theory suggests that, as long as people consider selection processes such as hiring and promotion to be meritocratic and fair, they may continue to accept ever-increasing levels of income inequality. Yet, in reality, inequality and merit-based decisions are deeply intertwined,” the study noted.

It explained, “Socioeconomic advantages and disadvantages early in life can have profound influences on educational achievement, test scores, work experiences, and other qualifications that form the basis of ‘meritocratic’ selection processes. Yet the near-universal support for meritocracy suggests that most people may not give much weight to unequal advantages and disadvantages.”