Merit and inclusion are not in tension
Merit versus diversity is a false trade-off.
The argument that merit and inclusion pull against each other rests on a narrow definition of merit, usually one that maps to a single familiar candidate profile. The APS definition is broader and more rigorous.
Merit asks whether the candidate has the work-related qualities genuinely required to perform the duties. It does not ask whether they look like the last person who held the role. Inclusion expands the pool of candidates whose merit is actually assessed, which, if merit is defined well, raises the quality of the shortlist.
The tension appears when “merit” is unconsciously defined as “similar to the incumbent.” That is not merit. It is familiarity dressed as assessment.
At panel kick-off, define the work-related qualities explicitly, and test them against: what does a non-traditional candidate who excels at this look like?