If the position is such that it doesn't matter who is hired (meaning: there is usually no measurable difference in outcome for people in the role, and all candi

If the position is such that it doesn't matter who is hired (meaning: there is usually no measurable difference in outcome for people in the role, and all candidates have basic qualifications), then nepotism isn't necessarily wrong, in my view. It creates a level of loyalty that true meritocracy does not, for example. I believe this is the mechanism for a lot of hiring through "networks". What I object to, in these cases, is pretending that the various versions of "basket weaving" are relevant merits, and that there is actual meritocracy. When the position is such that there are specific requirements; those abilities/skills can be tested with interviews etc, like how it works in most recruitment for professionals. This is my general perspective. There might be certain cases I'd have a different opinion.