This isn't a complete characterization of the problem the nepotism can be. It's not who does or doesn't or would or shouldn't have an advantage, per se. This becomes clearer once you pause and realize that governmentally speaking, nepotism is NOT ILLEGAL, in and of itself.

There are really two almost unrelated components or aspects to why nepotism is seen as a negative. One is the basic sense that "it's not fair" that people feel, whenever they are involved in an endeavor which was presented to them initially as a straight up competition of competence and skill, only to find that it really isn't after all. The other, is the practical problem, where someone who is actually BAD for the endeavor is promoted to a position of control within it because of who they happen to be related to. That's bad for the business. But neither is ILLEGAL in most cases.

Nepotism only rises to the level of being a serious disruption and distortion of an entire society, and hence something that the society would logically address through legal action, when the individuals involved happen to have come to be in positions which affect the entire society. Thus we DON'T allow the "Presidency" to be turned into a family possession (that would change it to being a Kingship). In other instances, where a particular business has been so "successful" that it has become essential at the core of society, the society will logically respond by demanding to have a say in how it is conducted.

Nepotist would be one that has been successful at something. Nepotism is one of the perks they have. Affirmative Action rewards one that under performs over one that has proven ability to perform.

This shows that you nothing at all about either one. You are quite simply, flat out wrong. Or rather, you are expressing an unsupportable OPINION.

I nothing?

Your post shows that you think you know everything...wrong!

Affirmative Action is Government sponsored Nepotism!

OR

nepotism is historically systemic sponsored Affirmative action

Have a nice day

No, you are again wrong. I haven't ever claimed to know everything.

Look up the ACTUAL definition of nepotism. Then look up an accurate definition of Affirmative Action (in other words, leave the politically right wing or Anti-Liberal sites for a minute, and find a neutral one that defines it).

If you read HONESTLY, you will see that the two terms refer to entirely different things.

Now. I fully understand why someone who has run across some of the problematic PARTS of the many Affirmative Action sub-programs and policies would LIKE to say that they remind them of nepotism, because in many instances, the decision for who to hire for a job isn't made on merit of the individual alone. Especially when the extra recalcitrant or resentful employers decide to ignore skill, and hire by percentages alone. However, that does not make the overall terms identical.

Also, if your goal is to fight one or the other, since they are NOT completely identical, trying to make headway by insisting they ARE identical will actually get in your way.

Igor, I love reading your posts. They are nearly always so obviously well thought out and logical, whether I agree with them or not. Thank you for that

Some clarifications I would like to make:

I did not mean to imply to anyone that nepotism and AA are IDENTICAL, but to point out one way in which they could seem SIMILAR.

Hiring by percentages is illegal UNLESS to reverse the effects when there has been a LEGAL decision that the hiring of a particular company or organization has been intentionally exclusive of some groups.

I do not believe any hiring decision comes on 'merit' alone. We have the face to face interview for employers to assess all those things that are 'non merit', like appearances, demeanors, and who we know.

I have always supported the overall GOALS of what gets called Affirmative Action, but disliked a number of the short-cuts that legislation tried to take to effect change.

The idea of using percentages of employees alone, in order to decide if a given company was failing to address the very real problems that resulted from long-term racism in the country, is a mistake. I think it's a typical kind of "quick fix" that doesn't actually fix much of anything, just as slapping duct tape over a failed weld in a pressure container isn't an effective repair.

As I did try to mention, there are narrow instances where certain aspects of nepotism are like certain narrow situations in some efforts to comply with AA regulations, but the reason I think it's important NOT to think such similarities are functionally important, is that taking the action most people would support in response to nepotism, and trying to apply it to concerns about Racism, will tend to serve to either ignore, or even support racism.

I'm what I like to call a Logical Solutionist, as opposed to giving allegiance to a political group or movement. When I see someone proposing to solve one problem by creating another one, I get antsy. And when I see someone trying to put an end to even a bad attempt to solve a problem, without proposing another solution to the problem, I feel like the guy in front of the dam, when a supervisor decides to pull the duct tape off the crack, without first attending to the water pressure building up to burst the dam .

Too many people who I think correctly oppose SOME of the AA legislation, only want to return to the way things were when racists were allowed to control the reigns of government in order to support their beliefs. That's not a solution to anything.

I hired & fired people while I managed a shop for a major corporation. Not once was I advised to hire over affirmative action.
There was no policy even remotely worded to that effect.

Hiring was my choice. I reviewed the resumes and job applications and chose the work history that would enhance my labor pool. I set interviews and got a feel for the personality of the person to see if they were professional. I even brought them out into the shop and had them verbally assess the equipment or verbally walk me thru a tool use. A mechanic can tell if a mechanic knows what they are talking about.

Of the very few times I had to fire someone, I reviewed their history and performance, their attendance and professional attitude and made a decision. I was very aware that my decision was going to affect their lives. I was also aware that I was responsible for maintaining a working, efficient shop. The main question I asked myself was "Is this person going to help or hurt my shop?". Every person I fired was aware that their job was on the line and why - I used the counseling method of reprimand.

I once hired my nephew. He was the best candidate of the few I saw in that hiring time frame. He held his own and I gave him no special consideration. After I left that shop to go to another, he remained for another year until he quit for a better job.

Very interesting topic. I thought I try to provide a little more information. This reply is not meant to represent Affirmative Action (AA) in its’ entirety but it may add some clarification.

AA was highly a controversial issue in the beginning however, it was proposed that the law regulate only employees in the public sector (government agencies) or employers with 50 or more employees in the private sector who are granted public sector contracts of $50,000 or more . The government, at the very least, should model equality in employment. Right?

Businesses can integrate an AA program even if it's not required to. But if they choose such a program, they often choose to comply with public sector law to mitigate their legal risk. If and AA program is not required and not in place, the company is not protected from being sued for discrimination but the company is not held to the complicated law under AA.

AA is still misunderstood today as being a requirement for balanced diversity. Adhering to AA is only required in certain cases and it never enforces the employment of a person who does not meet the job qualifications. However, if an AA program is being enforced and applications do not represent the needed pool of diversity, the company is required to create a “Reach Out” program in order to draw in a wider applicant diversity for future jobs.

I've always thought that equality in education was the bigger issue in many of our civil rights laws. If education is a human right, shouldn't it be based on an equality of education?

Do you think it might be worth looking into how much it cost per student to provide the highest level of education for every student to their potential?

I understand that funds from state and local taxes often determine the standard of education in any particular area. Of course it makes sense that those who can afford more for their children would want that 'more' to go to their child's school system.

But if education is considered to be such a priority for our country that it's mandatory, shouldn't it also be provided equally?

So, do you think that equally funded education would provide enough equality within our diverse population to eventually illiminate the need for a law like AA?

So, make Princeton, Yale and MIT the standard for all schools? Available to every student? Not dependent on costs involved or abilities attained. That everyone gets the highest education possible no matter what.
You want to remove the competitive edge from the education system.
That has already occurred in public schools. Top rated educations are available to any student that applies themselves and is granted a scholarship.
The finest schools are available to the finest minds and those schools should be selective in whom they accept.

Education is not equal. The ability to process and utilize knowledge is not equal either. Intelligence is not restricted to a race, color or creed. Intelligence is not realized from the school or the education program but by the individual's abilities.

Affirmative Action policies give people the opportunity but its the people that make the difference. My employer was not concerned with Affirmative Action during the hiring or firing process but they were adamant and precise in their policy concerning Equal Opportunity and Employee Rights.

Part of my CMS (Compliance Management System) tasks were very HR heavy. Harassment and accommodation were very important. Intelligence of the employees was lower on the totem pole than safety and fairness. It was my job as a leader to take these concepts and policies and put them in a language so all my employees could understand. Never was I told to make allowances for Affirmative Action or make special provisions due to race, color or creed.