June 25, 2008

Libs miffed at D.O.J. "political" hiring

Oh no -- the Justice Dept. apparently favored conservatives over liberals for two years out of the last seven:

Ivy Leaguers and other top law students were rejected for plum Justice Department jobs two years ago because of their liberal leanings or objections to Bush administration politics, a government report concluded Tuesday.

As early as 2002, career Justice employees complained to department officials that Bush administration political appointees had largely taken over the hiring process for summer interns and so-called Honors Program jobs for newly graduated law students. For years, job applicants had been judged on their grades, the quality of their law schools, their legal clerkships and other experiences.

But in 2002, many applicants who identified themselves as Democrats or were members of liberal-leaning organizations were rejected while GOP loyalists with fewer legal skills were hired, the report found. Of 911 students who applied for full-time Honors jobs that year, 100 were identified as liberal and 80 were rejected. By comparison, 46 were identified as conservative, and only four didn't get a job offer.

In 2006, though, 83 of 150 liberals were rejected while only 5 of 28 conservatives were. My math tells me that the totals of those two years rears 87 liberals to 65 conservatives hired. Liberals still outnumber conservatives despite the "political" hiring!

But here's the laugher:

"This is the first smoking gun," said Sen. Charles E. Schumer, D-N.Y., who sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee. "We believe there will be more to come. This report shows clearly that politics and ideology replaced merit as the hiring criteria at one of our most prized civil service departments."

What a hoot. This, from the ideology/party that backs idiocies like the University of Michigan's "critical mass" rationale for diversity on college campuses. Applicants don't get into college solely based on academic merit and the quality of their high schools, but on other "holistic" measures -- like race. After all, "critical mass" (in educational settings) means

that it is important for a sufficient number of "minorities" to be enrolled on campus so that they not feel "isolated." When the number of blacks dropped at UC Berkeley following the passage of 209, the opponents of 209 argued that the drop in black enrollment created a "hostile environment" for those enrolled. "Critical mass" theory also means that the remainder of the student body needs to see enough black faces so that they can benefit from "diversity."

Following this, er, "logic," doesn't it stand to reason that those "political" DOJ employees were just trying to create a "critical mass" of conservative hires? Y'know, make sure there was no "hostile environment" for them? So that the conservatives could benefit from the DOJ's "diversity?"

Just another notch in the belt that shows the utter illogic of liberal thought.

The full DOJ report is here (.PDF file).

Posted by Hube at June 25, 2008 05:44 PM | TrackBack

Comments  (We reserve the right to edit and/or delete any comments. If your comment is blocked or won't post, e-mail us and we'll post it for you.)

Two wrongs don't make a right. Not knowing anything else - and there may very well be other factors at work - an 88% acceptance rate for conservatives versus a 35% rate for liberals seems suspicious.

Posted by: Nels at June 25, 2008 08:04 PM

Nels. I am NOT arguing that two wrongs make a right. Yes, the DOJ was biased towards conservatives in '02 and '06. Yes, liberal administrators (and liberals in general) look at skin hue when considering admissions. That's my overall point: Schumer is all hot and bothered by the DOJ's actions; however, liberals much more often than not, favor considering skin hue as part of an "overall" approach. If merit should only be considered when hiring at DOJ, it should also be in college admissions and hiring elsewhere.

Posted by: Hube at June 25, 2008 09:53 PM

Post a comment









Remember personal info?