From the NY Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/25/washington/24cnd-justice.html?_r=2&hp&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
WASHINGTON -- Justice Department officials over the last six years illegally used “political or ideological” factors to hire new lawyers into an elite recruitment program, tapping law school graduates with conservative credentials over those with liberal-sounding resumes, a new report found Tuesday.
The blistering report, prepared by the Justice Department’s inspector general, is the first in what will be a series of investigations growing out of last year’s scandal over the firings of nine United States attorneys. It appeared to confirm for the first time in an official examination many of the allegations from critics who charged that the Justice Department had become overly politicized during the Bush administration.
“Many qualified candidates” were rejected for the department’s honors program because of what was perceived as a liberal bias, the report found. Those practices, the report concluded, “constituted misconduct and also violated the department’s policies and civil service law that prohibit discrimination in hiring based on political or ideological affiliations.”
NOW FOR THE TRUTH:
Of course, we all know the NY TIMES is implying...more from the corrupt Bush administration. But if you want to know the truth, first read any story gloating about this new DOJ "scandal" and then read the actual report, and then you will feel manipulated by the media and all those biased web sites.
Here are some snippets from the report.
In 2002, The data showed that candidates with Democratic Party and liberal affiliations apparent on their applications were deselected at a significantly higher rate than candidates with Republican Party, conservative, or neutral affiliations. However, we found NO evidence that the members of the Screening Committee intentionally considered political or ideological affiliations in making their deselections
During the next 3 years, from 2003 to 2005, the Screening Committee made few deselections, and we found NO evidence that deselections were made based on political or ideological affiliations.
in 2006 the Screening Committee inappropriately used political and ideological considerations to deselect many candidates.
In April 2007 the Department changed the process for selecting Honors Program and SLIP candidates... directed to follow the (NEW, no standard before) Component Review Standards Guidance that notes that only merit-based criteria should be considered in selecting candidates. In 2007 only 15 candidates were deselected, 14 because of poor academic standing and 1 because of poorly written essays.
Attorney General Mukasey issued a memorandum on March 10, 2008, requiring all political appointees to acknowledge that they have read the Department regulations that hiring must be merit based and that political affiliations cannot be considered. (end snippits)
In 2006 it really comes down to two people (Michael Elston,and Esther Slater McDonald), neither having any experience in selecting candidates, and without any direction or policies, were responsible for the process. Primarily, the actual discrimination was done by McDonald. At the time, she had only been with the DOJ for 3 months or so. Even at that, in total numbers, more liberals were approved then conservatives.
It's ironic in that the 2002 changes were put in place because, as the report stated; Christopher Wray, then Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General, said that politics and ideology only arose in the context of the concern of trying to be more inclusive. He said there was a perception that in past administrations (Clinton) the career employees doing the screening may have weeded out candidates because they were in the military or law enforcement.
