Your stance is shifted to the opposite end of the spectrum completely. Studies repeatedly show that Asians score at higher levels on standardized tests than white people and are still rejected from these schools, when this very same test was relied on heavily when white people always scored at higher levels. Why would that be? Why would a test that garnered such respect when white people were scoring higher than anybody else suddenly be less relevant when Asians are scoring higher? This indicates that white people as a group, whether deliberately or subconsciously--on the basis of herd mentality and herd 'invisibility,' will choose whatever tack results in the highest reward for them socially/economically. This is not subtle in the least: SAT's mattered when white people scored highest (and they were written with the purpose of excluding others to begin with); then when others score higher as a group, it has less relevance. There is only one master here, and it isn't intrinsic quality or objective performance.
It's the institution of white supremacy. It commits two major crimes:
1. Creates a system that shunts rewards to white people, transmogrifying when it needs to in order to cater to them; and
2. Allows those same people remarkable ignorance so that they can avoid the consequences of what is functionally monarchical behavior, allowing them continued privilege.
I am one of the people who have benefited from this system to some extent, a postgraduate from a highly competitive arena. BUT unlike you, I've come to the conclusion that it doesn't work not only because it's steeped in white privilege BUT ALSO because this group that benefits appears to lack the moral capacity to admit that what they call 'earn' is largely gifted.
I met plenty of Kavanaughs in college, plenty of George Bushes who belonged nowhere near intelligence, plenty of other unknown wealthy white people who convinced themselves they 'earned' even when objective date tells us all they didn't. You paint the picture of a church choir. This isn't accurate: there are plenty of privileged people taking advantage, not just acting it. If the entire system changed, top companies wouldn't want to hire these people. They hire them because the system in its entirety favors white people. Take, for example, studies that show that unusual ('foreign') names or ones that 'sound Black' on CV's are often put to the side for 'normal' white names. This is an early stage privilege (after pricey private schools and legacy donations) that decreases the competition for white people by eliminating the opportunity for that POC. This happens repeatedly, at all levels.
There is a much higher percentage of white people at higher levels in all corporations and government than there is in the general population. There can be two basic conclusions:
1. They've 'earned' it, with the unavoidable conclusion that they are just doing a better job than everybody else, on the basis of statistics; or
2. They are unjustly enriching themselves; ie, giving each other promotions and awards that belong to POCS BY CONVINCING THEMSELVES THEY DESERVE IT. After watching this for about 3 decades, I do believe it contains features of psychosis: it is an extreme a form of self-deception.
I've noticed, after sitting in these rooms for a long time, that white people assume their leadership: they act as if even if, perhaps, POCs could do the job, the fact is that white people, in general, are the REAL leaders. I urge you to ask yourself and to observe just how often white people implicitly make this assumption, especially the conservative ones in the C suite and on the BoardofD, often men (occas women) who make the assumption--sometimes without even being aware of it--that white people make the best leaders. If we assume true equality, we should see a spread of all peoples at all levels of society in equal proportion. We don't. We see more POC at the bottom and more white at the top. Assuming this is fine assumes that white people are better leaders. My experience is that, in the final analysis, that's what most white people think.
I believe we start with different assumptions: I will assume you think the last few centuries have brought 'Enlightenment' and thus our current system is fundamentally fair. I believe our system of calling the events of the last few centuries the 'Enlightenment' is a form of manipulation, given that most of the world has been cast in poverty and darkness due to these onerous events. Calling the last 500 years the 'Enlightenment' is, in and of itself, a distortion of reality that favors people of Europe and Americans of European descent. My ancestors from several different continents have indicated that there has been only lots of darkness. Most instances in my life indicate is that the current system is flawed because it was hardened in the kiln of white supremacy. Whether or not I’ve benefited from it personally is LESS relevant than the way in which it negotiates power: by keeping it in the same hands, by defending a majority of white people proportionally at HIGHER LEVELS, where it matters.
Here is an article written by a young Black woman with which I agree:
Any group which benefits from a system has an intrinsic moral responsibility to ask, first and foremost, 'what is my motive to keep this system alive, and to what lengths will I go to deceive myself in an immoral context in order to maintain that extrinsic advantage?'