Søren Flinch Midtgaard has presented his work in progress on Discrimination and Paternalism at CalPolyPomona hosted by California Center for Ethics and Policy. In his presentation, Midtgaard talked about reaction qualifications, which according to Wertheimer (1983) "refer to those abilities or characteristics which contribute to job effectiveness by causing or serving as the basis of the appropriate reactions in the recipients". Following Lippert-Rasmussen, Midtgaard adopts a symmetrical stance on which reaction qualifications to count – in brief the idea is that negative reactions to candidates that are based on antimeritocratic attitudes ought not to count. Through his work, Midtgaard aims to supplement the symmetrical stance by showing that there is a compelling paternalistic argument for not counting reactions qualifications that are based on antimeritocratic attitudes.

Midtgaard's general argument is that:

• Premise 1: If X has reasonable beliefs to the effect that interfering in Y’s affairs is likely to promote Y’s interests considerably, and the interference in question is limited (or proportional considering the interests at stake), then X has a (defeasible) reason for undertaking the intervention in question.
• Premise 2: X sometimes has reasonable beliefs to the effect that interfering in the affairs of Y is likely to promote important moral interests of Y, and that some such interferences may be limited or proportional.
• Conclusion: X sometimes has (defeasible) reasons for interfering in the affairs of Y.

Midtgaard's presentation is available to watch through the following link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5R-jV2xhl4I