hiring decisions were “based on a candidate having a critical skill or two and on soft factors such as eagerness, appearance, family background, and physical characteristics.”
Which paves the way for nepotism, entrenched corruption and institutionalized bigotry.
We can't have it both ways. Either we allow people to get ahead on merit or we don't. And if we do then that means the best and brightest will get ahead of the rest always and necessarily.
As long as the opportunities to get ahead are afforded to all and as long as there is a place for all regardless of the outcome, I don't see why everyone must hold an equally important role for a society to function fairly. Some decisions are more important than others and should be under consideration of people with higher level ability. Technically that's an aristocracy, at least the way Aristotle envisioned it.
Which paves the way for nepotism, entrenched corruption and institutionalized bigotry.
We can't have it both ways. Either we allow people to get ahead on merit or we don't. And if we do then that means the best and brightest will get ahead of the rest always and necessarily.
As long as the opportunities to get ahead are afforded to all and as long as there is a place for all regardless of the outcome, I don't see why everyone must hold an equally important role for a society to function fairly. Some decisions are more important than others and should be under consideration of people with higher level ability. Technically that's an aristocracy, at least the way Aristotle envisioned it.