Pascal L. Mowla

Affirmative action is typically presumed to apply to recruitment but never lay-offs. Policies of affirmative action which only apply to recruitment are known as entry initiatives whilst exit initiatives involve lay-offs. In this paper, I challenge the status quo presumption against mixed exit initiatives which involve both lay-offs and preferential recruitment. Assuming that we have reasons to enact affirmative action initiatives whenever doing so promotes equality of opportunity, I strengthen the case for mixed exit initiatives by showing how, in at least some cases, the relevant initiatives will be likely to provide a greater reduction in inequalities of opportunity both within and across different birth cohorts. I consider various objections to exit initiatives as I construe them and argue that none of them are immediately decisive such that the status quo presumption is justified. I conclude by gesturing towards the plausibility of the initiatives discussed and other policies which merit further consideration.

Why is it wrong to distribute goods nepotistically, and is it always wrong to do so? In this paper, I examine three distinct objections to nepotism from efficiency, equality of opportunity, and wrongful discrimination. Though these accounts of the wrong of nepotism identify genuine concerns that help orient our thinking about nepotistic practices, I argue that they fail to provide a comprehensive explanandum of what makes nepotism wrong when it is wrong. As a corollary, I suggest that they are unable to account for the wrong-making features that different cases present and struggle to convincingly delineate between permissible and impermissible nepotistic activity. By way of a response to the challenges raised here, I emphasize the need for a distinct account and lay the groundwork for further normative work in this area by considering the morally significant interests that different cases present.