the Law, the Universe, and Everything 

Search

Concurring Opinions is a
general-interest legal blog
operated by Concurring
Opinions LLC, a Pennsylvania
Limited Liability Corporation.

lr_jkr9_12_08supremecourt.jpg

ad-logo5.jpg

Our Podcast

Subscribe to Law Talk

Law-Rev-Forum-2.jpg

law-rev-contents2.jpg

Law-Prof-Blog-Census.jpg

Categories

Accounting
Administrative Announcements
Administrative Law
Admiralty
Advertising
Agricultural Law
Anonymity
Antitrust
Architecture
Articles and Books
Bankruptcy
Behavioral Law and Economics
Bioethics
Blogging
Book Reviews
Capital Punishment
Civil Procedure
Civil Rights
Conferences
Constitutional Law
Consumer Protection Law
Contract Law & Beyond
Corporate Finance
Corporate Law
Criminal Law
Criminal Procedure
Culture
Current Events
Cyberlaw
DRM
Economic Analysis of Law
Education
Empirical Analysis of Law
Employment Law
Environmental Law
Estates and Trusts
Evidence Law
Family Law
Feminism and Gender
First Amendment
Food
Google & Search Engines
Health Law
History of Law
Humor
Immigration
Insurance Law
Intellectual Property
International & Comparative Law
Interviews
Jurisprudence
Law and Humanities
Law and Inequality
Law and Psychology
Law Practice
Law Professor Blogger Census
Law Rev (Boston College)
Law Rev (Boston University)
Law Rev (California)
Law Rev (Chicago)
Law Rev (Columbia)
Law Rev (Cornell)
Law Rev (Duke)
Law Rev (Emory)
Law Rev (Fordham)
Law Rev (Georgetown)
Law Rev (GW)
Law Rev (Harvard)
Law Rev (Illinois)
Law Rev (Indiana)
Law Rev (Iowa)
Law Rev (Michigan)
Law Rev (Minnesota)
Law Rev (Northwestern)
Law Rev (Notre Dame)
Law Rev (NYU)
Law Rev (Penn)
Law Rev (S Cal)
Law Rev (Stanford)
Law Rev (Texas)
Law Rev (UCLA)
Law Rev (Vanderbilt)
Law Rev (Virginia)
Law Rev (Wash U)
Law Rev (Wm & Mary)
Law Rev (Yale)
Law Rev Contents
Law Rev Forum
Law School
Law School (Hiring & Laterals)
Law School (Law Reviews)
Law School (Rankings)
Law School (Scholarship)
Law School (Teaching)
Law Student Discussions
Law Talk
Legal Ethics
Legal Theory
Media Law
Movies & Television
Philosophy of Social Science
Politics
Privacy
Privacy (Consumer Privacy)
Privacy (Electronic Surveillance)
Privacy (Gossip & Shaming)
Privacy (ID Theft)
Privacy (Law Enforcement)
Privacy (Medical)
Privacy (National Security)
Property Law
Race
Religion
Reparations
Science Fiction
Second Amendment
Securities
Social Network Websites
Sociology of Law
Supreme Court
Tax
Teaching
Technology
Tort Law
Web 2.0
Weird
Wiki
Wills, Trusts, and Estates

Archives

October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005

 

« LawProf as Philosopher-King | Main | So, what the Heller our friends at the ACLU going to do now? »

June 30, 2008

"The outrage, of course, is it was only two years ... "

posted by Dave Hoffman

430px-Yale-Law-School-Judge-Ornament.jpgKathryn Jean Lopez, editor of the National Review Online, says about the DOJ's practice of using political credentials in civil service hiring decisions:

"The outrage, of course, is it was only two years ... "
Funny, I thought the outrage was that this behavior was illegal (under the CSRA and applicable Department regulations). Orin, over at the Volokh, agrees ("The basic picture is just disgraceful.")

But Todd Zywicki, who earlier downplayed the "scandal" ("it seems obvious that merit alone has never the sole criterion for securing these positions, and that a variety of other personal, geographic, and demographic factors have always played into these decisions") hasn't spoken up to criticize the Administration, and other prominent conservative legal voices have been equally silent. (I don't think Glenn Reynolds has said a thing about the report: readers can correct me if I missed it among the many posts about Obama's foibles).

Were the situation reversed - if a liberal administration conceded that it broke the law by hiring liberals when conservatives were more qualified for the positions, a minor firestorm would have erupted. But this scandal has been basically ignored by the big media outlets. Sam Buell, writing to Leiter, puts it starkly:

I know we're supposed to welcome the Federalist Society everywhere for its wonderful contributions to intellectual diversity on campus but, when reading this document, it's hard not to fear--among some of its influential members--a sinister agenda with quite a long view to transform the bar into an organ that serves one particular set of ideological ends while cloaking itself in professionalism. "We want our place at the head table! ... Right, thanks, now that we've got it, you can't have yours anymore." I'm hard-pressed to think of a similar scenario, actual or even plausibly imaginable, involving members of a mainstream law organization that is left of center.
The response to this, I guess, is that legal organizations dominated by left-of-center lawyers (like law schools and the DOJ) do discriminate against conservatives, but implicitly. To combat this insidious bias, conservatives in the administration had to break the law explicitly. (Which law, judging from the comments on the VC, conservatives see as a pretty silly to boot.) Just like in legal academia, the DOJ supposedly needs to implement conservative affirmative action: hiring less qualified, less skilled, lawyers to "level the playing field". [It's probably just nasty to point out that sounds like Senator Hruska's defense of Supreme Court nominee Carswell]

For me, the upshot of the report is that folks with conservative markers on their resumes who were hired at the DOJ in the relevant time periods should face a degree of skepticism about their skills, acuity, and worth that similarly situated DOJ employees do not. For those time periods, being hired at the DOJ is now a (at best) a noisy signal of a lawyer's quality. What a terrible shame.

Additionally, the scandal is a black mark against the Federalist Society, which it would do well to expunge by publicly repudiating the Bush Administration's affirmative action on its behalf.

Posted by Dave Hoffman at June 30, 2008 03:18 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.concurringopinions.com/movabletype/mt-tb.cgi/3807.

Comments

That is outrageous. If they had only advised and condoned torture, then they could get tenure at Berkeley.

Face it, these people will likely not suffer for what they did, and even if they were punished, it would not come from within the "profession".

Posted by: George at June 30, 2008 05:18 PM


Professor Hoffman,

So do you believe that an upshot to the hiring of African American law professors and other similiarly situated minority professors is that they "should face a degree of skepticism about their skills, acuity, and worth that similarly situated law professors employees do not?"

After all, universities and law schools specifically try to hire such minority professors for much the same justification as the DOJ's.

Posted by: Humblelawstudent at June 30, 2008 05:31 PM


I've heard from minority professors that they feel this skepticism all the time.

They shouldn't. The problem is that your analogy is bad: the DOJ was taking candidates with significantly weaker credentials, indeed ones that ordinarily would render them unqualified, for jobs on the basic of political affiliation, a kind of decision making in public employment that is unlawful.

By contrast, most people who apply for law jobs are from elite institutions already and would be fine law professors. Law schools practicing affirmative action in hiring never, in my experience, say that we should take candidates that aren't otherwise qualified (contra the DOJ) - they say that among the many qualified candidates we should count as a factor diversity in race, ethnicity and gender, to the extent that it help the faculty reflect the student body, thus improving students' experiences. That kind of decision making (1) isn't illegal; (2) doesn't result in the hiring of unqualified individuals because of a characteristic unrelated to likely job performance. Whether it is a good idea seems to me to depend on a complicated set of trade-offs and analysis - how much does a professors' ethnic/racial/gender diversity matter to the students' learning experiences / how much should we take into account barriers to accomplishment / etc. that are way beyond the scope of this post.

On the merits, though, I've got to say that the case for conservative preferential hiring is weak. What structural barriers to talent exist for conservatives in doing well in law school and thus getting a DOJ job? Why can't smart conservative folks get into H/Y/S and, once there, do well on blind-graded exams? They can, and do, and therefore hiring weaker candidates simply because they are federalists means the DOJ's lawyers are, on balance, less smart and accomplished than they used to be.

Posted by: dave hoffman at June 30, 2008 05:45 PM


Professor Hoffman,

I've scanned through the Hiring Report, and I didn't see much evidence that the quality of the hires suffered significantly because of the hiring practices by the DOJ in 2002 or 2006. If I'm correct, then the analogy is apt.

Posted by: Humblelawstudent at June 30, 2008 06:49 PM


This is a great blog. You have done a lot of work on it. I will keep you bookmarked! Feel free to come by and visit and/ or link to me.
aspiringsolo.blogspot.com

Posted by: Amy at June 30, 2008 07:35 PM


I didn't pore over the 115 page report, but can Professor Hoffman or someone else cite the pages where it was concluded that the process selected people who were unqualified?

I've readily found the pages where it's stated that normal academic requirements were initially used and then markers of liberal politics were used to "strike" or "de-select" some who had been initially chosen. But I can't find the pages where it's stated that unqualified conservatives got a massive bump.

Posted by: read the report at June 30, 2008 07:54 PM


I second the comments requesting that Prof. Hoffman provide support for his assertion that unqualified conservatives were selected. My understanding of the report is that in '02 and '06, specific members of a screening committee were substantially more likely to ding liberal than neutral applicants, and somewhat less likely to ding conservative than neutral applicants. Moreover, the applicants before the screening committee had already been chosen by career DOJ attorneys.

The upshot of the report is really that '02 and '06 applicants with "liberal" credentials who weren't hired should feel better about themselves.

Also, I think the premise of Prof. Hoffman's post is kind of a "dog bites man" story: 'some conservatives justify or ignore reports of other conservatives doing bad things.' I think you can replace 'conservatives' in that sentence with any other identifiable group, and it will still be true.

Posted by: JP at July 1, 2008 02:08 PM


Dave, why should this scandal be seen as a "black mark" against the Federalist Society? Don't get me wrong -- those who select participants in the Honors Program ought not to discriminate on the basis of ideology or political affiliation. (I hope that those who select Honors Program participants in the Obama Administration will not discriminate against "conservatives", Evangelicals, pro-lifers, etc.) It seems to me, though, that the Federalist Society is not "the bad guy" here. If anything, it continues to be unfair, I think, that Federalist Society membership is seen in many quarters (including, I gather, on the staffs of not-a-few Senators and, I suspect, on some law-school hiring committees) as a troubling, even disqualifying, credential. No?

Posted by: Rick Garnett at July 1, 2008 02:26 PM


"if a liberal administration conceded that it broke the law by hiring liberals when conservatives were more qualified for the positions, a minor firestorm would have erupted. But this scandal has been basically ignored by the big media outlets."

I find that hard to believe. Big media outlets would have ignored conservatives being rejected illegally because of their ideology. Conservative or libertarian blogs may or may not have cared - given that it basically happens all the time in academia, it would hardly be a new thing, especially to law professors.

Posted by: Nobody at July 1, 2008 04:43 PM


I suppose Mr. Hoffman implicitly concedes that the following claim is false -- "the DOJ was taking candidates with significantly weaker credentials, indeed ones that ordinarily would render them unqualified . . . ."

Posted by: John Doe at July 2, 2008 12:41 AM


Post a comment




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)

Authors

Daniel J. Solove

Website
Understanding Privacy

Kaimipono Wenger

Website
SSRN Page

Dave Hoffman

Website
SSRN Page

Nate Oman

Website
SSRN Page

Frank Pasquale

Website
SSRN Page

Deven Desai

Website
SSRN Page

Michael O'Shea

Website
SSRN Page

Sarah Waldeck

Website
SSRN Page

Lawrence Cunningham

Website
SSRN Page

Danielle Citron

Website
SSRN Page

Jaya Ramji-Nogales

Website
SSRN Page


Guests

Robert Ahdieh
Neil H. Buchanan
Miriam Cherry
Susan Kuo
Jonathan Lipson
Paul Ohm
Geoffrey Rapp
Susan Scafidi
Howard Wasserman
Timothy Zick






ad-logo3.jpg

blawg100_winner2.jpg

Previous Guests

Michael Abramowicz
Michelle Adams
Robert Ahdieh
Michelle Anderson
Laura Appleman
Francesca Bignami
Jeremy Blumenthal
Bruce Boyden
Donald Braman
Al Brophy
Bill Burke-White
Scott Burris
Anupam Chander
Miriam Cherry
Jack Chin
Jennifer Collins
Allison Danner
Brannon Denning
Deven Desai
Mike Dimino
Christine Haight Farley
Kim Ferzan
Dan Filler
Amanda Frost
Timothy Glynn
Rachel Godsil
Eric Goldman
Craig Green
Jeffrey Harrison
Erica Hashimoto
Carissa Hessick
Laura Heymann
Christine Hurt
Darian Ibrahim
Dan Kahan
Sam Kamin
Heidi Kitrosser
Adam Kolber
Russell Korobkin
Anita S. Krishnakumar
Greg Lastowka
Sarah Lawsky
Erik Lillquist
Jeff Lipshaw
Joseph Liu
Solangel Maldonado
Jason Mazzone
William McGeveran
Salil Mehra
Carrie Menkel-Meadow
Max Minzner
Scott Moss
Eric Muller
Jaya Ramji-Nogales
Elizabeth Nowicki
Paul Ohm
Michael O'Shea
Rafael Pardo
Marcy Peek
Eduardo PeƱalver
Neil RIchards
Lori Ringhand
Alice Ristroph
Paul Secunda
Jessica Silbey
Peter Smith
Charles Sullivan
Rick Swedloff
Steph Tai
Robert Tsai
Steve Vladeck
Sarah Waldeck
Melissa Waters
Alfred Yen
David Zaring
Timothy Zick
Jonathan Zittrain

Blogroll

Above the Law
ACS Blog
Althouse
Balkinization
Becker-Posner Blog
Beltway Blogroll
BlackProf
BoingBoing
Chicago Law Faculty Blog
Conglomerate
Convictions
CrimLaw
Crime & Federalism
CrimProf Blog
Crooked Timber
Discourse.net
Dorf on Law
Election Law
Emergent Chaos
Feminist Law Profs
43(B)log
Freakonomics Blog
Freedom to Tinker
Google Blogoscoped
How Appealing
Ideoblog
Info/Law
Instapundit.com
JD2B.com
Juris Novus
Jurisdynamics
Law and Letters
Legal Profession Blog
Legal Theory Blog
Legal Times Blog
Leiter Reports
Brian Leiter's Law School Reports
Lessig Blog
Madisonian
Mirror of Justice
National Security Advisors
Opinio Juris
Point of Law
Political Theory Daily Review
PrawfsBlawg
ProfessorBainbridge.com
Property Prof
Red Tape Chronicles
The Right Coast
Schneier on Security
SCOTUSBlog
Security Dilemmas
Sentencing Law and Policy
Simple Justice
Sivacracy.net
The Situationist
Susan Crawford
TalkLeft
Talking Points Memo
TaxProf Blog
Tech & Marketing Law
Truth on the Market
Volokh Conspiracy
WorkPlace Prof Blog
WSJ Law Blog
Wonkette
The Yin Blog

Pajamas Media BlogRoll Member