Nepo Baby Blues

I'm sure you've heard about it; there's a lively public discussion going on about Hollywood's "nepo babies". In this post I'd like to expand on the subject and identify some of the hypocrisy surrounding it.

The term "nepo baby" has mostly been applied in the entertainment industry and refers to someone who has benefited from nepotism. Nepotism is described as favoritism based on kinship in an occupation or field. It's not really surprising then, that the public discussion revolves around famous people, like Hollywood actors, who are known to most of us. Popular examples are Lily-Rose Depp (Johnny Depp's daughter), Scott Eastwood (Clint Eastwood's son), Zoë Kravitz (daughter of Lenny Kravitz and Lisa Bonet), and even household names like Laura Dern and George Clooney are the offspring of Hollywood's tightly knit circle of the rich and famous. Read Vulture's All But Definitive Guide to the Hollywood Nepo-Verse for an extensive overview, and you'll see that the nepotism sometimes stretches back three generations. It's also not strange that this discussion has all the hallmarks of today's "rage culture" where defenders of these privileged children and their detractors involved in fiery exchanges of words and insults. So let's take a step back and place the phenomenon in its proper perspective.

The main, and obvious, criticism against this practice of favoritism is that the flooding of Hollywood with these famous children makes it harder for new, young talent to break through. And I agree 100 percent. I mean, let's be honest here, Will Smith's son, Jaden Smith, isn't much of an actor, is he? I agree completely that nepotism stands in the way of the breakthrough of true talent, and that the job should be given to the truly talented people who worked their ass of to get where they are. Competence rather than your family name should be the deciding factor here, I'm sure almost everyone will agree. But the discussion is too narrow if you ask me. Nepotism, my friends, isn't a new thing. It's been with us for ages, starting within the clergy and the royal families of the past. And it isn't restricted to this one industry today; it's everywhere. And parents who wouldn't use their influence or their reputation to benefit their children, whom they love to death, are few and far between. Wouldn't you do the same?

But even if you and I would do the same, that doesn't make it right. I don't think there's much to be done to change a parent's love for their children either; that would be a bad thing. So, what do we do about it? Well, I think that we should leave it to the institutions and their rules and regulations. I know, that's not a brilliant suggestion; it's like saying that we should just let normal procedures continue. The normal procedure is that candidates apply for a position and that there's a mechanism of scrutiny, testing, interviews, background checks, an audition, to choose the best candidate for that position. That's what we do now in every other circumstance, and nepo babies should be subjected to that very same process.

The problem I have with this outrage against the rich and famous nepo babies is multifaceted, and I've already given one reason: why only talk about the Hollywood nepo babies? Millions of other benefactors of nepotism exist and gladly stay in the shadows. Let's talk about, for example, the widespread practice of legacy admissions among universities and college, a preference given by an institution to certain applicants on the basis of their familial relationship to alumni of that institution. The practice is particularly widespread in the college admissions in the United States; almost three-quarters of research universities and nearly all liberal arts colleges grant legacy preferences in admissions. What about business empires like Walmart? Preston Bezos attends the same university as his father Jeff; will he inherit his father's businesses, or just his money? I've said it so many times, and I'll repeat it here: not much has changed since the days of kings, queens, emperors and lords, we just gave them another name; the ultra-rich and ultra-powerful.

Also there's this particular hypocrisy I've encountered in this latest public outrage. The defenders of hereditary wealth, power, fame or college admissions (yes, they're out there), are usually the same right wing conservatives who rage against something like affirmative action or positive discrimination. That would be funny if it wasn't so revealing about their dangerous ideological ineptitude. They hate it when someone is hired into a position "just because they're not white or male", and defend their position by claiming what I've claimed in this post: that candidates should be selected by virtue of their competence, and not their belonging to certain demographics. First of all, their stance in the nepotism debate shows their hypocrisy, and second, affirmative action is supposed to be applied only if two or more candidates are equally competent; competence has still the highest priority. Or at least, that's how it's supposed to work, and if it doesn't, we can have a discussion about how to improve it, just like I've tried to do here.

There's more to say on this subject, but that'll have to wait for another time; I have to leave soon. I'll leave you with a short video that addresses some of the same concerns and I share it's message of hope that this Hollywood nepotism rage will open up the wider discussion about nepotism in all fields, industries and institutions.

Thanks so much for visiting my blog and reading my posts dear reader, I appreciate that a lot :-) If you like my content, please consider leaving a comment, upvote or resteem. I'll be back here tomorrow and sincerely hope you'll join me. Until then, stay safe, stay healthy!