Ira v. MSA, MSA 1d.100 4 (2004)

Ira v. MSA
MSA 1D.100 4
May 20th, 2024.

Proposed Rule: The Traditional Method for Court Appointments based on merit must be upheld to ensure the integrity and foundational principles of the Court system.

I. 


This case concerns the integrity of our beloved community. Here, we ground our morals in merit. The Multiplication School Admissions Test has served to differentiate the brilliant from the great, and it has done so with minimal harm and maximum purpose. However, the harm, however minimal, is one that exists, and it is worth examining with a close inspection. The Users in Question believe that there is a dire need to deviate from the traditional pathway of Court Appointment in the wake of increasing score requirements needed for Court appointment. The Users express a desire for an an election process, suggesting that users that are not on The Courts will select a User and appoint them to The Court of Twenty to serve as their Representative. Users express that this Appointment would balance out the soon to be "locked-in-place" Court system, since an elected appointee would ensure a presence of the "User's Interests" that can not be effectively precluded by a "locked-in-place" Court.

II.


Some users in our community raise the concern that our Court structure will not be able to sustain a democratic essence as long as our commitment to merit remains at the forefront of our Community's values. In other words, it is becoming increasingly difficult to secure a seat on The Court of Twenty or any superior court due to the expanding presence of high scoring users within the Community, and users fear that the Court will soon be impossible to "score into," effectively locking the Court(s) into place, keeping the citizens of our Community -- and their concerns -- out of the Court(s) as well. 

While it is true that The Court of Twenty and its superior siblings have become increasingly difficult to secure a seat on, such difficulty only reflects the commitment that the Community has to ensuring the integrity and purity of the Court(s). Since our Community wants the best minds occupying seats in the Court(s), the users intentionally score as high as possible to make sure that if any user is to secure a seat on any given court, that their merit reflects a readiness, preparedness, and worthiness to occupy such seat. The high scoring association with our Courts is not a flaw, but a feature of our Community, and such a feature ought to be embraced and encouraged. 

It is also just as true that, while it is difficult to secure a seat on The Court of Twenty and its superior siblings, it is not impossible to do so. The concerns that the users in question raise is simply a worry not worth spending much time over since an MSAT score of 214 and a Sigma Score of 428 is not an impossible achievement. As a result, since the users's concern is not material, and since the high scoring association of our Courts is merely a reflection of our Community's desire for meritocracy, we determine that there is no need to deviate from the traditional pathway for Court appointment.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

I respectfully disagree, and I believe that this case should rule in favor of Ira for the following reasons. 

Firstly, The Multiplication School Admission Test is not bias-free. Because of this, it is irresponsible to base our Community's Court Appointments exclusively on marks generated by this exam, especially when our own Courts have acknowledged its shortcomings ...

It is undeniable that standardized testing, including the MSAT, has long been criticized for its inherent biases and limitations. Research has shown that socioeconomic factors, such as income and parental education level, can significantly influence test performance, resulting in disparities that may disadvantage students from marginalized communities.

Luck v. Dexter, MSA 1d.100 2 (2024);

Research has shown that [The MSAT] often reflect[s] cultural and socioeconomic biases, putting disadvantaged students at a disadvantage. Relying solely on sigma scores could perpetuate inequality by favoring those who have access to resources such as test preparation courses.

Whal v. Carly, MSA 1d.100 1 (2024).

Secondly, the concern that the Users raise is a real one. Although it is currently not an issue, it may not stay that way for long. If it becomes the case where so many high scoring users have joined our Community, such that it is virtually impossible to get on any Court of any level, it would behoove our Community to have installed an Appointee that can ensure a voice for the Community that would otherwise be at the mercy of The Traditionalists.

Therefore, my proposed rule is that when the current method for selection creates barriers to broader representation, transitioning to an election-based system is necessary to maintain the system's democratic essence.