The findings will come as no surprise to those disgusted with the antics of this administration. But this report is a big deal because (1) it comes from within the Department of Justice itself and (2) is the first in a series of reports investigating the higher profile U.S. Attorney firing scandal.
I found the report interesting because it shows how mediocre, but loyal Bushie, attorneys were placed in senior positions with influence over the entire hiring process for what are supposed to be apolitical career positions.* It also contained some laughable justifications by the cronies for why Rhodes scholars or people in the top third of their class at Stanford etc. were not qualified for an interview.
And of course, this report is somewhat personal. It isn’t directly relevant to my situation because it examines those who were “deselected,” or removed from lists of applicants to be interviewed whereas I actually interviewed. Twice. And for the years in which I interviewed, there either wasn’t evidence of blatant politicization or it was after the scheme was exposed and reforms were supposedly in place. The report doesn’t examine if there was any politicization of final hiring decisions.**
I have my suspicions, though. I was told in both my interviews that final offers were subject to senior-level review. And my resume contains enough “liberal buzzwords” to constitute Exhibit A of what to watch out for if someone might be illegally screening for political or ideological factors. Also, the place of my 2L summer internship is explicitly listed as a “Liberal Organization” that was screened out. (See p. 107). So much for wanting attorneys who are interested in what they want to practice!
Due to the extension of my current position, I am still eligible to apply for the Honor’s Program. I’m lukewarm on doing so, and I wonder if I should even bother. The same people will be in charge. The clock is ticking!
*Neither of the two worst offenders still work for the government and thus can’t be disciplined. One quit her position at DOJ the day before she was supposed to be interviewed by the investigating committee. Suspicious? I wonder if she is taking a leave of absence from her position in this law firm or if she is now worried about ethics complaints to her state bars?
**This of course would be more difficult to control for since the interview introduces many more variables. For example, after meeting me, the interviewers probably decided that I was WAY too attractive and charming to bring into the DOJ because I might distract both the jury and the judge when arguing a case.
1 comment:
This is disturbing to the say the least. Maybe you should defer yet another year when (please, please let Obama win) there will be a changing of guard in the DOJ.
Post a Comment