Why are so many people accepting of nepotism and cronyism?

[DaveJ]

Just curious. I mean how many dreams are shattered every time somebody important gets a job based on who they know instead of their hard work and qualifications? How many people have accepted the fact that they will not advance to a high place in life no matter how hard they try? 25%... 50%... 90%....?

So how many kids still believe that one day they could become President? Less than 1% maybe?

I hate to mention it, but even on this board people have responded that this is just a fact of life. But it should not be.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

1. That is one of the big reasons for tenure

in academia, to protect teachers from losing their jobs to the school board members' nieces and nephews!

[HereSince1628]

6. Many college/university faculties "keep it in the family."

The hiring of spouses, siblings, children, in-laws, love interests and the ever present inbreeding to alumni is common at colleges and universities.

It may be more apparent at small institutions but it is no different from the rest of society.

I am personally aware of a circumstance in which father-son, and brother-sister combinations (all four alumni) completely represent the faculty interests on a presidential search composed of 12 total members.

At this same institution, the associate dean in charge of the Humanities was appointed to that position by his wife now V.P. whom he hired into the school in the late 1980's--she is his former student and was possibly hired as a romantic interest.

The associate dean of the Sciences at that institution was originally hired into mathematics where her sister was tenured. That Ass. Dean met her husband at the college when both were part-time instructors.
As Ass. Dean she appointed him to be the director of the graduate program in computer science (even though he has no degree or publication in computer science).

[DaveJ]

10. Seriously, why even bother trying?

This road will lead to our ruin. It will create a society of lazy grunts with enourmous egos (because they are never challenged).

There will be no reason to learn anything because learning is a waste of time when they could be out getting to "know people."

This may work for as many as half the people, the less able half, while the most able half is left being frustrated feeling like they're pushing a boulder up a neverending hill.

So as a result, why try? There is no reason.

[nvliberal]

12. Civil Service is supposed to prevent that in government.

But of course it's not perfect, and nepotism is extremely common in public schools.

There should be more anti-nepotism policies, yet we should realize that in this imperfect world, there is really no such thing as "merit."

People DON'T get ahead in this society on the basis of talent or "hard work." It's almost always luck or connections.

[GayCanuck]

17. So True

My brother tried to get a position at McGill and.....FORGET IT!!......it's who you know and who you (forgive me) blow......

[GreenPartyVoter]

2. "Cause that's just the way it is."

[BootinUp]

3. There is another angle, but I ain't using it

to defend Bush or Miers, you are discussing the more general situation. Every manager wants to hire people that are both loyal and good performers, if there is a surer way then selecting someone they know then I think it would be used. In cases where their choice is bad in terms of those two criteria they usually pay for it eventually.

[DaveJ]

4. Loyalty doesn't require people to be related...

Nor does being related/cronies assure loyalty. This is a matter of perception. Some perceive the world as just a place where we hang out until we die. Others believe that the world is something that we thrive to improve through our hard work. If the former type of people had their way, the latter would not be able to accomplish their goals, resulting in deterioration. This can especially be a problem in scientific and technical endeavors, which most are these days. This is an attitude I would expect from Cons but it is especially frustrating when others accept it as the way things are.

[BootinUp]

5. But I don't accept cronyism

just trying to explain that while of course there is cronyism, there are probably a fair number of situations where the choice (for a friend or possibly even a relative) was made on merit or past performance.

Obviously when a friend or relative is chosen the person doing the hiring has opened themselves up to this charge and they know it.

The real question is whether there is accountability in whatever organization you are talking about, and opportunity for others to improve themselves as well.

[DaveJ]

8. I'm not saying you accept it per se...

Just that... people should understand the magnitude of injustice that it causes. Since there are not an infinite number of jobs, when 90% of the good jobs are taken by friends and relatives it utterly destroys the lives (and their spouses and children depending on the situation) of those who thought that work and dedication would lead them to success.

Personally I've turned down the opportunity to obtain high quality employment from relatives based on the appearance of impropriety. That, and I truly believe that an organization will be the most successful if it looks for all its employees based on qualifications and nothing else.

So one might say a relative (or crony as the case may be) can learn the job and do just as well as someone who worked to get to where they are. Maybe. But that relative does not have the same soul and passion of someone who beforehand dedicated their lives to that pursuit. The relative will be lacking in character, definitely, and probably lack life experience that is obtained when one thrives to obtain personal merit.

In sum I really think that this whole nepotism-cronyism thing ought to be looked at in a much more critical manner than it currently is.

[BootinUp]

7. One more thing

I didn't clearly say before, it can be very difficult to accurately judge how well people will work out in a job especially when your choices don't have previous experience or its not clear why they left previous jobs.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

9. Political corruptuion by both parties has become acceptable.

Now they call it "smart politics".

[LaPera]

11. Because we are all guilty of it to a certain extent and lesser degrees...

in our lives, with family & friends.

And we would all like to see it happen to us...BECAUSE we believe we wouldn't be exploitive and corrupt.

:rofl:

[DaveJ]

13. Then I guess I'm a freak of nature...

Because I take no special advantages. Actually, I'm talking about "greater" degrees, employment, something that affects a people's lives more than any other thing other than health.

Fair criteria for determining a major hire is crucial to a Democratic society. When people are no longer judged based on their merits civilization is over.

[onenote]

14. and how would you stop it (and would you really want to)?

Who someone decides to hire and the reasons will always contain an element of subjectivity. The law can look for patterns of discrimination and try to deal with those. But most of the time the choice isn't between a qualified and unqualified candidate for a position. Its between two candidates that meet the basic qualfications but have different strengths. If you are looking for someone you can trust and whose loyalty you don't doubt -- something that a president typically values -- then "cronyism" and "nepotism" is going to be a part of the mix. Its why JFK picked Bobby to be Attorney General. Its why Reagan picked Meese. Its why Bill Clinton picked some of the folks he picked. Law school classmates; personal attorneys; old campaign chums -- they often do quite well in presidential administrations and I don't see how you could stop it or that it would be a good idea.

onenote

[DaveJ]

15. Are you defending it?

Some things simply can't be legislated but they are still wrong. It's not illegal for the President to flip off America but it would be wrong. There would be no way to prosecute him for it, but it's something that would be looked on in a very negative way. The problem is since we have come to accept biased hiring as a fact of life, apparently the U.S. people can now officially be classified as by and large corrupt people.

[onenote]

16. to a certain extent, yes i'm defending it

When someone who is not qualified for a position gets it because of connections...that's bad. For example, Mike Brown, who basically failed at everything he did, but kept getting jobs because of who he knew.

On the other hand, I'm not bothered that Bill Clinton hired Vince Foster or JFK hired Bobby. And I'm not particularly bothered by chimpy picking Miers, although that doesn't mean I support her nomination. Put another way, my feelings about Miers would be the same whether or not she was a WH insider. Would it have bothered you if Bill Clinton had named Vernon Jordan to the Supreme Court? It wouldn't have bothered me...

onenote

[DaveJ]

18. The only kind that doesn't bother me...

...is 'mom and pop' businesses. And even that's not certain in my mind but more of a shade of gray.

The President doesn't own the government and a corporate manager does not own the company. They should hire responsibly. Do I have any problem with Mier or Jordan, no, but I simply think hiring (as a strict guideline) should be fair. Once it's not we might as well just throw everything else out the window.

I certainly am not nor do I think I can affect the Mier nomination. Scrub will do whatever he wants regardless.

I guess the summary of this Q/A is, do I think the end justifies the means, and the answer is no. In the case of biased hiring the end is usually as bad as the means though. It will lead to our ultimate ruin. Even if only 20% are being disenfranchised now, that proportion is essentially a slave class that works harder than others and destine to never receive proportional compensation.