>"absolutely should not be, respected"

Taking issue with the 'absolute' part: The cultural context does impact what gets respected, though. For example, having an organization that avoids nepotism is generally respected in the U.S. There are other countries/cultures that do not, at least to the same degree. From their perspective, the more respectable act is to help out those in your tribe/family when you are in a position to do so.

Parent specifically said dishonesty should not be respected. Helping people in your family/community is a fine goal as long as it’s not dishonest. If Bob gets hired at global corp A and is able to hire his unqualified family to the detriment of corp A then that’s just as bad. If they’re qualified then there might be a culture clash, but it doesn’t sound necessarily dishonest.

Fair enough. I maybe unfairly characterized both "dishonesty" and "nepotism" as a display of lack of integrity (by the Western definition, which tends to bias toward meritocratic values). “Dishonest” from the standpoint of deviating from the social contract of unbiased and meritocratic hiring.

I don't see nepotism as being dishonest. It may be unseemly or unfair (or not, depending on culture), but it's not dishonest.

Yeah, I didn't draw the distinction I was making clearly enough. I've edited the post, but it's too late to clearly show the edit.

My point being, in the U.S. there is an agreement (implicit or explicit, depending on the context) that hiring will be fair, above board, and based on meritocratic principles. Nepotism undermines this and is, in the distinction I was trying to draw, dishonest from the standpoint that an organization will say one thing ("We hire based on merit") and do another ("We hire based on connections"). Other cultures do not necessarily play this game and make it quite well known that you will be hired based on your network above most else.