What? The Deputy AG of the United States Rejected Me PERSONALLY? Wow.
So did you apply to the DOJ Summer Law Intern program too? I did. Like a lot of 2Ls, I applied broadly to private, public interest, and government employers. I had a modest amount of success with just about each.
But not with the DOJ. I didn't hear a word -- not a peep, not an email, not an interview request throughout the fall and into the winter. Eventually, sometime in February, I received word that I wouldn't be considered for a position.
At the time, I briefly wondered a) what took so long (they were supposed to respond by October) and b) why I did better with just about every other employer.
Now comes a possible explanation: I got axed for having the wrong politics. According to a post on Speaker Pelosi's blog, her office recently received an anonymous letter from DOJ employees alleging a new and sudden politicization of both the Attorney General's Honors Program (for graduating students) and the Summer Law Intern Program (for 2Ls).
Apparently, as they always do, DOJ sections (like antitrust, civil rights, etc.) sifted apps in the fall to compose a list of interviewees for the programs but, for the first time ever, the list got kicked up to a "screening panel" at the Office of the Deputy Attorney General. When it came back, scores of names were crossed off, so much so that "one section was not permitted to interview any of its choices for the Summer Law Intern Program."
And what did the axed candidates all have in common? You know the answer, of course: They all worked for Democrats or Democratic causes.
Needless to say, the politicization of the intern program may represent a new--if not laughable--low for the DOJ and AG AG. Only Federalist Youth allowed near the photocopier!
(Or, as the anonymous whistle-blower put it better, "While it might be said that whoever wins an election can do the hiring, this new hiring procedure is contrary to DOJ tradition. The Department represents the entire country and has always had attorneys from a variety of schools and political leanings. There should be no litmus test for a top law student to get an interview at the Department of Justice.")
As for my story, it's certainly possible I was just a plain old bad candidate on the merits. But, I got to be honest, I don't think so. But my resume is filled top-to-bottom with liberal and Democratic work. All of which gives me some shivers to think that, somewhere in the recesses of a federal building in Washington DC, some hack Bush political appointee glanced at my resume and exclaimed, "Don't let that liberal in here!" It's an honor just to be a victim. Really it is.
Anyone with more information or speculation or their own experience is encouraged to comment. Is ANYONE at Boalt working for the DOJ this summer? (Also note the great line in the letter about the "Harvard Career Placement Office" calling DOJ directly to find out what was up. They don't take no for an answer at Hahvad, seems like.)
Of course, all of this begs the obvious question: What was I thinking wanting to ever work -- even tangentially, even for a summer -- for this corrupt administration in the first place?
But not with the DOJ. I didn't hear a word -- not a peep, not an email, not an interview request throughout the fall and into the winter. Eventually, sometime in February, I received word that I wouldn't be considered for a position.
At the time, I briefly wondered a) what took so long (they were supposed to respond by October) and b) why I did better with just about every other employer.
Now comes a possible explanation: I got axed for having the wrong politics. According to a post on Speaker Pelosi's blog, her office recently received an anonymous letter from DOJ employees alleging a new and sudden politicization of both the Attorney General's Honors Program (for graduating students) and the Summer Law Intern Program (for 2Ls).
Apparently, as they always do, DOJ sections (like antitrust, civil rights, etc.) sifted apps in the fall to compose a list of interviewees for the programs but, for the first time ever, the list got kicked up to a "screening panel" at the Office of the Deputy Attorney General. When it came back, scores of names were crossed off, so much so that "one section was not permitted to interview any of its choices for the Summer Law Intern Program."
And what did the axed candidates all have in common? You know the answer, of course: They all worked for Democrats or Democratic causes.
Needless to say, the politicization of the intern program may represent a new--if not laughable--low for the DOJ and AG AG. Only Federalist Youth allowed near the photocopier!
(Or, as the anonymous whistle-blower put it better, "While it might be said that whoever wins an election can do the hiring, this new hiring procedure is contrary to DOJ tradition. The Department represents the entire country and has always had attorneys from a variety of schools and political leanings. There should be no litmus test for a top law student to get an interview at the Department of Justice.")
As for my story, it's certainly possible I was just a plain old bad candidate on the merits. But, I got to be honest, I don't think so. But my resume is filled top-to-bottom with liberal and Democratic work. All of which gives me some shivers to think that, somewhere in the recesses of a federal building in Washington DC, some hack Bush political appointee glanced at my resume and exclaimed, "Don't let that liberal in here!" It's an honor just to be a victim. Really it is.
Anyone with more information or speculation or their own experience is encouraged to comment. Is ANYONE at Boalt working for the DOJ this summer? (Also note the great line in the letter about the "Harvard Career Placement Office" calling DOJ directly to find out what was up. They don't take no for an answer at Hahvad, seems like.)
Of course, all of this begs the obvious question: What was I thinking wanting to ever work -- even tangentially, even for a summer -- for this corrupt administration in the first place?
Labels: Rabid Conservatives
posted by Earl Warren at 2:22 AM
23 Comments:
Well I wouldn't hire you for misusing "begs the question" and for beating me to the post. As always, well done (except for that "begs the question" bit). And no, it's not an accepted use. I don't care what Merriam Webster says.
This policy started with Ashcroft, sometime around 2002. There was press around that time about how the administration was looking for "diversity" in its selection process (meaning, looking to underrepresented southern schools, etc.) I worked in the Civil Rights Division back then and can corroborate that pre-Ashcroft/Bush, an attorney in each section of the Civil Rights Division hired summer interns. Post-Ashcroft/Bush, candidates were selected by the "front office" aka the Bush-appointed political office. From what I hear from my colleagues still there, having the federalist society and religion on the resume doesn't hurt.
You guys are up at wholly unreasonable hours ;)
If true, I think this is even worse than the USA firings.
For those who don't know, there has long been a kind of de facto "separation of powers" within DOJ, where the career professional staff does the work and the political appointees make sure there's enough money in the budget and sign off on big strategic choices.
I had an internship for a branch of the DOJ while in law school (i.e. during the present administration). The office I was in had a lot of democratic and liberal lawyers, and although there was sometimes a sense of frustration with the policy being set at the political level, there was also 1) a sense of pride at the competence and professionalism in the ranks of career lawyers and 2) a grudging acceptance of the need for some level of political oversight of law enforcement.
It seems to me that a clear line between "career" and "political" levels in the DOJ hierarchy serves important purposes. It allows the Department to be, at its best, competent, representative, diverse, proud, and still politically accountable. The erosion of that line would be a terrible thing.
I agree with Isaac that the politicization of the DOJ down to that level is an awful idea.
There's another issue lurking here: do grduates of the elite schools get an appropriate share of top slots? There have been some claims that before Ashcroft the slots were "captured" by Harvard-Yale.
I've certainly never heard that Harvard and Yale have a lock on these positions; if anything the DOJ is even better than civilian employers at hiring top candidates from a very broad range of schools.
The selection of only candidates with particular political leanings has been common knowledge for a while now and is extremely unfortunate. It's great to see the issue addressed so forthrightly and in a letter to Congress, hopefully action will be taken.
One anecdote I found amusing, if not disturbing: the outgoing clerk in our chambers was #1 in her class and, despite clerking for a "Democratic judge" made it through the screening process and to the final round of interviews. She said the interview was one of the best she ever had and that her panel was on the edge of their seats, everyone was smiling, and she thought the job was hers. Then came the final question - what were her feelings on the admin's decision not to give foreign aid to any clinics that provided counseling about abortion as an option for pregnancy. Essentially, she didn't give the "right" answer and she said you could hear a pin drop. Her interviewers' faces were crestfallen and the interview abruptly ended. Needless to say, she's now at a firm.
What I'd heard wasn't that Yale and Harvard "have" captured the process, but that they "had" captured it before Ashcroft and that howls of protest went up when DOJ began selecting a more geographically diverse crowd (in addition to focusing on conservative credentials). The suggestion was that two things were going on: making the process more partisan and less elitist. If that really happened, the latter might have been a smokescreen for the former, but the latter could also be good or bad in its own right. There's a hint of that in the linked letter, where the bad guy (Ellston) denigrated students from non-elite schools.
Hmm. I'm guessing that a lot of Boalties would have ambivalent feelings about this letter:
1. Rejecting applicants based on political affiliation--"Outrageous!"
2. Prioritizing middling students at elite law schools over the best students at regional law schools--*looks at shoes, whistling*
3. Prioritizing middling Harvard students over the best Boalt students--"Outrageous!"
This is silly. Boalties aren't being booted by virtue of the school name.
I'm a 1L who applied to work in the DOJ's DC office (with no connections) in January, recieved a follow-up email a few weeks later and then was hired after a phone interview. Everyone I encountered was polite and no one expressed any interest in my politcal leanings.
I also worked at the DOJ in DC my 1L summer, but it's my understanding that the process for hiring unpaid volunteers is very different than the SLIP/Honors Program hiring process.
For volunteer interns, each office is pretty much able to interview and hire whoever they want and don't need approval from higher-ups. In the office I worked in, the person in charge of hiring was just one of the trial attorneys who volunteered to oversee the internship program. My branch was very unpoliticized, and perhaps in branches where politics play a bigger role the people in charge of volunteer intern hiring will be inclined to consider ideology. But I doubt that even then politics would play nearly as big a role as they do in the SLIP/Honors Program hiring process.
Mike M,
As a one time transfer to Boalt, I used to feel the same way. Why not take the top students from the regional schools over middling students here at Boalt. The answer is simple and two fold.
First, there are qualified Boalt students who don't get the firm job of their dreams. Despite the hype some quality boalties fall through the cracks and there aren't enough spots for all of them. (Less true over the last couple of years.)
Second, and more importantly the firms feel that in taking Boalt students they are taking the elite from the regional schools. Boalt takes over 40 transfer students including the top of the class from
Hastings, Golden Gate, USF, and Santa Clara. While some top students at regional schools choose not to transfer, enough transfer for it not to be worth the firm's time to go to the regional schools. Plus if you want to work at a big firm, have the grades to transfer, and don't transfer you have demonstrated bad judgment why should the firms hire you then?
Sorry Laura, I don't think this is silly. First, as others have pointed out, there is a difference between the 1L volunteer intern program and the 2L/3L honors program. The first is a good 1L summer job; but the second is/used to be _very_ prestigious. It was also an important pipeline to permanent DoJ employment, down the line (DoJ didn't used to hire people straight out of law school). So the politicization of this pipeline is important.
As an aside, I don't know if your experience is representative. When I interviewed for a DoJ job for 1L summer, the interviewer pointedly asked if, coming from Berkeley, was comfortable implementing Republican policy (his description of Berkeley was so colorful that I was almost speechless). I gave a rather more aggressive than necessary response, mostly because I thought the question was totally out of line: don't presume to know my politics, or that they'd interfere with my ability to do an _unpaid internship_. And FWIW, I still got the job.
But I think there is an outside perception of Berkeley that will impact Boalt students applying for political jobs. It cuts both ways (Boalties may have an easier time proving liberal credentials, harder time if they want to prove conservative "bona fides".)
Mercifully, we'll have an Obama DOJ or Clinton DOJ in about 20 months, and some sanity will return to the department.
Bill Maher: "Who is Monica Goodling?" Very funny.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LCdt4rgxCU8
There are a few Boalt students who are part of SLIP this year.
I got a permanent job through the Honors program with the DOJ in Washington DC starting this year.
I externed with a district court judge over the summer who was appointed by Clinton and used to be a big partner at an aggressive plaintiff's side law firm. My resume says I'm a member of Animal Law Society (if that doesn't scream out "crazy liberal nut case," what does?). I've been a member of ELQ all three years.
I was never asked anything at my interview that had a political tint to it, or asked my opinions about any given topic. (I was interview for the Environment Division.)
Maybe it's different for different divisions, but as anonymous (2:33pm) said, there will be another administration soon, and I personally think even if it's a Republican one, its hard to imagine it can be worse than this one.
Armen closed comments on the Hastings copycat killer thread? What an egoistical douchebag. What's he going to do - not permit comments unless he's here to monitor the thread? Armen, stop being such a facist, controlling asshole.
Go fuck yourself.
Armen, I seriously urge you to reflect on your behavior on this blog. I would be very wary of having my identity associated with posts that are not just unprofessional and poorly written, but insulting, vulgar, and mean.
See, i.d.
Oh dear, Armen.
Well, I haven't read through most of the comments, but I echo everything in this post. I've been working for the U.S. Attorney's Office here in SF since the beginning of last summer. It's been a great experience. Loved every minute of it.
But something is wrong in D.C.
I worked with a fellow soon-to-be 2L from Harvard during the summer. Her and I both applied to the DOJ SLIP program, both of requesting the Tax Division as our first choice. Now bear in mind, the way DOJ is structured, every criminal tax prosecution or civil collection action is handled by D.C. Except for two judicial districts: N.D. Cal. and C.D. Cal. She and I were the only two student externs in the Tax Division in N.D. Cal. And apparently, C.D. Cal. had between 6 to 8 Tax Division externs. All-in-all, we figured that meant there were 8 to 10 candidates applying to the SLIP program with prior Tax Division experience. Seeing how they had 20 spots in the Tax Division, I figured having worked for some old D.C. veterans here in SF would give me a leg up.
Apparently not. Like EW I waited to hear from D.C. They had given us this strict breakdown of when they would notify us about an interview, when these interviews would take place, when offers would be made, etc. We were told there would be, at the minimum, an email notifying candidates they were not being considered for an interview.
(On a side note, Anon @ 10:48 and Tacitus are right: there are major differences between hiring 1L unpaid volunteers and applying to the SLIP and AG’s Honors Program. Hell, do you know who helped make hiring decisions for my division at U.S. Attorney’s Office for this upcoming summer? Answer: me. My supervising AUSA and I sat down and interviewed applicants. That’s how informal the 1L hiring process is for the unpaid volunteer program. SLIP and the Honors Program all go through a process in D.C. though.)
I was especially excited when my supervising AUSA told me someone from D.C. had called asking if I was competent, how well I did my job, and that, after hearing his responses, I would be getting an interview.
I assumed that meant someone would be getting into contact with me.
October came. Nothing.
November. Nothing.
December. Nothing.
At this point, I thought maybe it was because I went to Hastings. But no. My Harvard colleague was getting the same silent treatment. Everyone I had talked to was receiving the same. So, I tried doing a little investigating, following up with the attorneys in D.C. responsible for their respective sections’ SLIP hiring. And I got no answers.
January. Nothing.
February. Nothing.
March. Nothing.
And now, in mid-April, still nothing. Well, except for the online posting of my “status change” on their application website. Apparently, I was no longer being considered.
No interview. No email. Nothing.
Fortunately, I got a few other job offers and luckily, a position with a DA’s office (which, in light of the work I would have done in D.C., was preferable to working in D.C.). All-in-all, it worked out for the best for me, but I wonder how many other people out there sat on their thumb, waiting and wondering.
So while we rightly rip on the guy stupid enough to make a hoax threat directed at my law school, we should remind ourselves that professionalism goes both ways.
But (and this coming from a moderate conservative), this administration has been anything but professional.
Oh, and I wanted to add that in no way did I feel entitled to a DOJ SLIP job.
I just felt like I was entitled to an email rejection at the minimum, rather than having to wait months past their deadline to check a website with an opaque message about the program no longer considering candidates.
Post a Comment
<< Home