Like I stated I don't see her being a woman being a factor in her hiring as much as who her father is. I may be proven wrong and if so, so be it.
If you are proven wrong on this point, then so am I; I am entirely in agreement that this looks like classic nepotism.
There might be little add-ons (icing on the cake) such as gender and youth (and who knows what else), but those are not erosive to this prime computation.
As far as hiring practices and this is all I'm going to say about it because I don't think it pertains to this case, if equally qualified, why wouldn't you want some diversity?
I would conduct a second interview to attempt to break the tie. "Well, this one has arbitrary physiological feature X" is a poor method of tie-breaking.
"But Jasmine has the largest feet out of any our candidates!" As it stands, we will probably be psychologically biased in favor of the female candidate (if not because we are emotionally committed toward progressivist ideals, then because screaming mobs with blue checkmarks carry the whip for those who are not), so we will probably default to gender as a tie-breaker anyway.
And it is ONLY IF there is no separation on merit, that a secondary consideration should be brought in. Hmm, here is a proposal for a secondary consideration: don't hire someone because they are the child of someone famous. Let us commit to the diversity of people outside of the tribe of rich elites who dominate the industry. Thus, I would prefer to hire a person of color, or woman, or LGBT, or mere white male, who did not enjoy the unearned privilege of being placed at the head of the line.
I have no problem with a shop hiring an equally qualified woman or POC over a white dude for the sake of diversity, provided they're equally qualified.
The tie-breaker can drift towards rule of thumb to defacto rule. Hiring can be a stressful process. You always feel bad for the candidate who doesn't get the job. As it stands, tie-breakers already provide a convenient objective means to extract oneself from the messy process of analysis of merit. And you can always feel good about increasing diversity...
And (again) what of other kinds of diversity? What of diversity of thought, of experience, of wealth, of class? Colleges and universities are now at 60/40 to 65/35 split favoring women. Would you grant admission/scholarship to the equally qualified woman in this context? Or would you look exclusively to merit? Or would you favor the man?
African Americans are about 13% of the U.S. population. What if your shop is already at 15% African American? Would this be adequate or would you need to do more to make up for the sins of the past or the perceived sins of other contemporary shops? Where do you draw the line for your hiring practices? Or do you?
I don't think Hannah was qualified. If you want to hire somebody who isn't qualified, sometimes ending with horrible results, that's your business, but then prepare to deal with any potential fallout.
And that is why there are limits to growth for diversity, at least in some sectors. If people die if you aren't the most qualified, then it is better to have a member of the oppressor/overprivileged/overrepresented class in that role, as this is preferable to a higher risk of death and destruction.
Very aware of how nepotism works. It can suck if you're on the wrong end of it.
I agree. So why not use this as your first "tie-breaker." What of diversity for people who are not part of the community?
I can see how she got her first job as armorer, probably because of her dad, but she had a track record, albeit small, by the time Rust went into production and it wasn't very good. Red flags were raised.
And that is what really makes me scratch my head. Even Nic Cage saw that something was wrong, but the producers of
Rust didn't, even after two negligent discharges on their own set?
I am all for second chances, especially for young people because part of growing up is making mistakes and learning from them. If you make mistakes and there isn't any sort of downside/punishment to your mistakes you'll never learn. It appears she skated on a few things that were pretty serious, which is never good.
Give a kid a break, right?
Their is a great story about Bob Hoover (legendary combat pilot and test pilot, basically a Chuck Yeager) who almost died when a kid put jet fuel in his WWII fighter during an airshow. The kid was broken up emotionally and Hoover took mercy on him. He figured the kid learned his lesson and insisted that that person always fuel his planes from now on when he visited that airfield, saving his job.
How can you not love that story? How can we not love second chances? I don't disagree, but we do have to recognize that it is a source of bias in the case of a true goofball.
She should not have been hired for this position if the reports from her last film are true, and I'm sure the folks in the know, know if they're true or not. If true, she should have been put into some version of a timeout. Don't give her another job right away with the same responsibilities and expect different results. If this was her dream job and she really wants to be in the biz in this capacity she would wait it out. If not, see ya later.
Sure. Sounds good to me.
Right and the AD, Dave Halls, was an experienced AD. Total failure on his part as well. Was Souza gone and Halls in charge that day? I have a feeling there was a lot of stress and tension on that set. Not a good working environment, imo. There's going to be a lot of finger pointing, which seems to have already started, as this unfolds.
But that finger pointing doesn't simply divide out. It is cumulative negligence and all these parties can and should be held appropriately responsible, including the person who pulled the trigger, right?
Closed Thread
