The numbered envelopes

Text: an original contemporary committee-report-style practice extract.

The neighbourhood workshop had one subsidised bench available for six months. To prevent favouritism, the committee removed every applicant’s name and placed each proposal in a numbered envelope. Three panel members scored the proposals independently under the same headings: practical plan, benefit to other users and reliable use of the space. The highest total won. Nobody on the panel knew whether an envelope belonged to a friend, a stranger or a familiar critic.

Yet the form allowed eight hundred words, and the guidance included examples of a ‘strong’ answer. One applicant attended a proposal-writing group and knew how to turn a modest plan into confident paragraphs. Another had repaired neighbours’ bicycles without charge every Saturday for two years, but described this work in four plain sentences. The panel could not favour a reputation it could not see. It also could not recognise experience unless the applicant converted that experience into the language rewarded by the form. Anonymity removed one advantage while the criteria quietly introduced another.

The successful applicant did not waste the opportunity. The bench remained busy, and several useful sessions were offered to beginners. This outcome made it tempting to declare the method fair after all. However, a good resident may have been selected despite the weaknesses of the process rather than because those weaknesses did not exist. Before repeating the scheme, the committee must decide whether it wants the most persuasive proposal, the strongest record of contribution or some combination of the two. Numbering the envelopes determines what the judges cannot see; it does not determine what they ought to value.

Evaluate how successfully the writer argues that a neutral procedure does not necessarily produce a fair choice. Support your views with detailed reference to the extract.