This isn't breaking news -- this is old news.

No mention of Regent?

I am all for diversifying the DOJ - I find no friend in Dubya's political universe, but here's to making the DOJ accessible to top achievers of all stripes.

Greanpeacers are all nuts. It's not that their politics are disagreeable - it's that their politics reveal a dangerous psychosis.

Might as well say that turning away a suicide bomber is "political" discrimination.

2:18 is right. I read about this 4 hours ago...

So that's why I didn't get the job...

Seriously though, does anybody else legitimately feel that their "liberal-sounding resume" was the death knell for their DOJ honors application? I was interviewed by one very inexperienced person who knew less about the law than my 8 year old nephew. (I thought I nailed it.) I always thought that was a bit odd as I heard that applicants are usually interviewed by two or three higher-ups.

Dem nappy headed, birkenstock wearing, Phish listening hippies don't belong in the government, anyway...

2:18 is right...i read this a year ago.

"'rejecting candidates with liberal or Democratic affiliations “at a significantly higher rate' than those with Republican or conservative credentials, the report said"

Higher rate? If liberal applicants outnumber conservative applicants 2:1, and if the DOJ sought a 50:50 ratio... wouldn't it be expected that the ratio is higher?

2:26 - LOL.

The Bush Justice Department favors conservatives in hiring? This is neither "breaking" nor "news."

We had a honors program in Alabama. And you know what, they would not let me in. I told them it was because I was a liberal. At least that is what they called me. Well, they actually called me dumb (can you believe that) all the time, and momma and everyone else down here always said that liberals were dumb. So, I guess I am a liberal or something like that. You know what, I think they might be because momma never lied to me.

I'm a former Conyers staffer that applied in successive years to the Honors program. Anyone want to take an employment discrimination case?

I love how when conservatives benefit from affirmative action it's no big deal, priceless.

2:23(2):

Could be the reason I got pwnd in the application process last year. Last year I was around 15% at a T25 with a published note, journal, and moot court. Application was good. I was shocked I didn't get an interview, even though I have no idea if I had a chance to land an actual job.

The Executive Branch being political in hiring practices?? Shocking!!

nm, reading the actual report (which Lat failed to link to).

2002 applicants: ACS, 0-7; FedSoc, 27-2.
2006 applicants: ACS, 5-2; FedSoc, 15-4

Also, the list of "liberal" organizations at the end of the report is 3-4x longer than the list of "conservative" organizations. Hilarious.

Finally, is this really a big deal? If someone's going to oppose, say, the environmental or death penalty positions of the DOJ, isn't that relevant?

DOJ is a TTT!

What is the matter with this Administration???

I clearly remember the rafts of Conservatives that were brought on board by the DOJ under Clinton.

Politics aside, exactly how difficult is it to get into this DOJ program? The people who talk about it make it sound like it's harder to break into than top BigLaw shops. Is it really that tough?

Wait, you mean the president wanted to hire people who agree with him rather than disagree with him?

To the former Conyers staffer who "applied in successive years" to the program...

One reason you didn't get hired: You didn't bother to read the basic eligibility requirements. From the website...

Eligibility for the Honors Program
Eligibility is generally limited to graduating law students and recent law school graduates who entered judicial clerkships, graduate law programs, or qualifying fellowships within 9 months of law school graduation and who meet additional eligibility requirements.

Not to mention that your J.D. from Wayne State ain't going to get you very far in D.C. Perhaps you should take what's remaining from your former $30K Hill-staffer salary and hire a real attorney to sue your TTT law school for letting you graduate without having mastered the art of reading comprehension.

2:42 - - It's tough. There are a lot more big law spots than DOJ Honors spots, and I would imagine the applicant pool to DOJ Honors is at a higher level.

2:31(1)- I think you have to be at the very top of your class to get an interview for Honors -- top 10-15% isn't even special considering the limited number of spots. I was near the top and only got one interview.

For example, Carol Lam, U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of California, appealed the deselection of a candidate and pointed out to
Elston in an e-mail on October 11 that the candidate had graduated from Stanford Law School with distinction and had a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals clerkship. Lam told us she speculated that the Committee may have deselected the candidate because the candidate was clerking for a judge who was a Clinton appointee or because she had written an article on gender discrimination in the military. In her e-mail to Elston, Lam asked for an explanation for the deselection.

Elston replied by e-mail that most deselections were for poor grades. He acknowledged, however, that poor grades did not appear to be the issue with this candidate, and he offered to check into the
application and let Lam know whether an appeal would be successful. Elston replied later that day: “I have reviewed her application materials, Carol. I do not think an appeal will be successful. If it helps,
she was not selected by the other components to which she applied.” Lam responded: “Thanks Mike. Just curious, though – I don’t see anything unacceptable in her online application that was made
available to us. Do the other components see something that I don’t?” Elston replied: “Not that I know of, Carol.”

(from p 47)

2:46: conyers staffer could have applied during law school, during her clerkship, been denied both times, and then gone to work for conyers, no?

A senior attorney in the Civil Division’s Appellate Branch conducted an analysis of the 59 candidates that were deselected out of the 135 candidates that were submitted by the various sections in the Division. The senior attorney wrote that, as the approval and
deselections of SLIP candidates trickled out in the fall of 2006, a pattern emerged that became impossible to ignore: candidates who had worked for [Democrats] were uniformly rejected, notwithstanding some with outstanding qualifications. In fact, 12 of the 13 candidates on the Civil Division’s list who had worked for a democratic senator or representative were rejected. . . . In addition, 4 out of 5 candidates who had worked for democratic state legislators were rejected.
The attorney wrote that “every candidate who had worked for GOP legislators at the state or federal level had been approved.”

White Boy Entitlement Syndrome strikes again.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Re: this being business as usual. That me be, but it's certainly against the rules:

"Positions for DOJ attorneys fall into two broad categories:
political and career. It is not improper to consider political or
ideological affiliations when hiring for DOJ political positions. However,
as discussed below, both DOJ policy and civil service law prohibit
discrimination in hiring for DOJ career positions on the basis of
political affiliations. This prohibition applies to attorneys hired for
permanent positions through the Honors Program as well as summer
interns hired through the SLIP, because these are considered career
positions.
The Department’s policy on nondiscrimination is contained in the
Code of Federal Regulations, Section 42.1(a) of 28 C.F.R. Part 42,
Subpart A, which states:
It is the policy of the Department of Justice to seek to
eliminate discrimination on the basis of race, color,
religion, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, marital
status, political affiliation, age, or physical or mental
handicap in employment within the Department and to
assure equal employment opportunity for all employees and
applicants for employment (emphasis added).
While the regulation does not define “political affiliation,” courts have
considered political affiliation to include “commonality of political
purpose, partisan activity, and political support.” See, e.g., Curinga v.
City of Clairton, 357 F.3d 305, 311 (3d Cir. 2004). "

That's from page 6 of the report, with the emphasis added.

Honors is RIDICULOUSLY competitive.

Does this mean that the DOJ is going to stop hiring so heavily out of Notre Dame?

We're supposed to take the applicant universe winnowed by career folks as some sort of given, free of bias. Right--that's believable. That's why most conservatives I knew in law school debated whether to include conservative affiliations on their resumes when applying for DOJ positions. Of course, the career staff at DOJ thinks that liberal politics are in fact a qualification for the job, and since they're the career staff, we're supposed to accept it.

What I found amazing was the huge number of applicants sent on for approval who didn't meet minimally high academic standards. (Note that both liberals and conservatives were more likely to have low academic standing than those in the neutral group. Nevermind, don't note that, you might wonder what's happening with the career staff.)

DOJ Honors was my safety.

Why would you want a DoJ Honors spot? Even with a Harvard JD, a 50k package isn't enough to pay the bills.

Does anyone know how I'm supposed to borrow GradPLUS loans without a credit score? Nobody wants to be my co-signor.

For example, ... AAG Keisler appealed 3 candidates who had been deselected ..... The 3 appeals of the deselected candidates, including an appeal of a candidate who was a Yale Law School student
and a Rhodes Scholar, were denied.... At the time, Elston gave no explanation for the decisions.

Great, now all of these idiots who applied to the DOJ and never had a shot of getting an offer can act all indignant and claim that they didnt get it because they were liberal (like most law students -- until they get a real job), rather than facing the fact that they are just not that smart.

Just what we need, more whining, self-important law students . . .

2:47(2):

I'm aware of the tough competition for slots, but I've also heard they will look at people within the top quarter of a class from a variety of schools. I honestly wouldn't be surprised that the reason I didn't get an interview was because I worked for a very, very prominent Democratic Senator--which was listed on my resume. And like I said, not saying I think I would have gotten a job, but I think not getting an interview was a tad odd.

--2:31(1)

2:31(1) -- a bit high on yourself, arent you?

2:31(1) you were "around top 15%"? You either were in the top 15% or you were not. Stop deluding yourself. Almost doesn't count. Not in legal hiring.

And while we're at it, here are some other facts that your career office (and your ego) failed to share to you:

A. Being on a journal is not the same as Law Review. Journals are a dime a dozen these days. How many did your school have? Now multiple that by 200.

B. Participating in some Moot Court competition only means something if you WON said competition. And I'm not talking about client counseling...

C. Published Note? Published where? TTT secondary journal? Right next to the recipe of the month, just above the classifieds?

Bottom line: the reason you got "pwnd" is because you just aren't as qualified as you like to think. Shocking, isn't it?

The thing to note in this report is the correlation between poor academic credentials and conservative associations/viewpoints.

Face it Repubs: The smartest people tend to be more liberal; the stupidest tend to be more conservative.

2:59:

Not really. People with lesser grades than me at my school got DOJ interviews, and they didn't have better resumes in other respects. From what I've heard, my stats were well within the range of acceptableness for interviews. That's all I'm saying. I honestly doubt I would have received a job if I had gotten an interview, but I was surprised I didn't get an interview at all.

--2:31(1)

Yes 3:01, because the subset of DOJ applications correlates exactly to the general population.

Is anyone surprised by this? How the hell does Regent Law School get so many folks hired. My understanding is that Regent would not even qualify as a TTT. How can there not be discrimination as that is a conservative christian school.

However, working for the government makes you a sellout anyway.

Liberals have no place at Justice.

2:31 (1) -- I hear you. Maybe your application was overlooked by DOJHonors and you should have gotten an interview. I worked for a Dem. senator, but my clerkship for a repub appointee judge may have cancelled that out in the eyes of the selectors. Who knows. I'm sure it worked out for the best for you.

- 2:47(2)

Can't anyone answer my question about GradPLUS?

Also, why would you want to work for the DoJ as a first-year? The package isn't enough to re-pay your loans.

I wonder if this extended to attorneys applying to other positions at Justice, including AUSA's.

3:00:

First, who said my school ranks? 15% is a guess on my part. Can't say how accurate it is, but it probably wasn't much lower.

Second, some schools' "law reviews" are called "journals."

Third, "mere participant" doesn't count as "moot court"--at least in my book.

Not sure why you're attacking me. I just found it strange that when other people at my school with lesser grades got interviews there, while I had no trouble getting interviews with V10 firms. I don't feel entitled to working at DOJ, as should haven been clear from my posts. Maybe you have poor reading comprehension?

--2:31(1).

word to the wise - don't belong to extremist organizations if you want to work for the government at any point in your career. what do you think it's gonna happen if you put greenpeace on your resume and apply to work for a conservative administration? same thing that would happen to a John Birch society member applying for Honors under Obama.

Well of course it's biased toward conservatives... clear logical thinking is key to being an attorney.

Meh, so long as the GOP is in the White House DoJ and all the other legal gov't jobs will be controlled by the HLS Fed Soc and to a much lesser extent Notre Dame grads. They don't call them the HLS Mafia for nothing.

Don't worry, when President Obama is in the White House all of those jobs will start going to Yale and Stanford grads.

If you didn't go to one of the above schools you weren't getting into Honors regardless of your politics.

Ciao.

2:46 - you're overlooking the intern program itself, to which i applied during law school and the honors program prior to graduation. Five years of Conyers came prior to law school.

Don't kid yourself that this discrimination was limited to the Honors program and career hires.

They didn't hire me and I went to UVA.

3:16: What about Chi?

How is this any different from the federal court of appeals judges who admittedly hire clerks based on their conservative credentials? (“Judge Michael Luttig on the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, for example, hires only students with membership in the Federalist Society or comparable credentials on their resumes.”)

(See Bach, “Movin' on Up with the Federalist Society”, The Nation, September 13, 2001, p.3.)

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20011001/bach/

How is this any different from the federal court of appeals judges who admittedly hire clerks based on their conservative credentials? (“Judge Michael Luttig on the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, for example, hires only students with membership in the Federalist Society or comparable credentials on their resumes.”)

(See Bach, “Movin' on Up with the Federalist Society”, The Nation, September 13, 2001, p.3.)

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20011001/bach/

This is an outrage! How is DOJ going to write reports like these if all the liberal careerist DOJ lawyers are gone?

3:22 You'd think that UC would be well represented in DC b/c of its conservative cred but for whatever reason you don't run into them like you run into HLS and ND people everywhere you go.

I just finished skimming the report. Anybody who thinks this isn't a big deal should do the same.

Competitive? Depends on the component to which you're applying. Bureau of Prisons participates in Honors Program, which isn't competitive compared to Antitrust, Crim and Civil.

This is old, old news.

Dude--can the Democrats pass a law that all Republicans have to be castrated?

3:22 - The difference is that it is illegal.

The "highly qualified candidate" test includes law review as a requirement. I know a good number of conservative law students who didn't even apply to law review because it was too ideological for their tastes. Before I concluded liberals were, on average, smarter than conservatives, I would need to see the data according to just school rank, grades, and clerkships.

btw, realize that even Mukasey doesn't think political tests should be applied:

In a statement, Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey said the department had "overhauled" its hiring process for the honors and summer intern programs last year. He said he would direct staff members to follow other recommendations issued by the inspector general and the Office of Professional Responsibility today.

"I have also made clear, and will continue to make clear, that the consideration of political affiliations in the hiring of career Department employees is impermissible and unacceptable," Mukasey said.

(from the wapo article)

4:11 ought to say "shouldn't"

Is Notre Dame really that well represented in DC?

Kobe couldn't make it without me. And neither will a conservative-riddled Department of Justice.

Shaq-Fu

Sorry, Kobe couldn't 'do' without me. Not 'make it' without me.

DoJ, tell me how my ass tastes...

Shaq-Fu

4:39 - Not sure if ND is well represented in DC generally, but the DOJ seems to hire ND grads.

funny how the tone in the comments changed so drastically between last week's NYU Journal post and this...

After working for Republicans on the Hill, I was top 10% at a small southern school (I have no idea what tier we were in) and had clerked at biglaw in Atlanta the previous summer. I got an interview. I made a call to a friend with lots of contacts in the Political side of Justice which proved to be a big mistake. The Career Justice attorneys with whom I was interviewing took great offense to my invoking the Atlanta Mafia (their words).

frankly i think that all of you who simply lamenting not getting hired (outside of those alleging discrimination based on political leanings) need to realize one thing - the DOJ isn't biglaw. i didn't go to a top tier school, but i was in top 5% of my class and my resume (besides being extremely leftist) was smothered in public interest. in every one of the three DOJ interviews i received i was told that the DOJ is interested most in those committed to public service. that, above all else, is likely why people who did worse than you in school, or who went to lesser schools, got interviews and jobs and you didn't.

I interviewed with the Civil Rights Division through the honors program about three years ago. Almost ALL their questions were related to political leanings/views. Maybe this is par for the course in that division considering the subject matter, but I could tell pretty quickly that any reference to a democrat (past or presence) wasn't well received (I look conservative on paper). I was a bit surprised. Obviously, I wasn't given an offer. This simply confirms by suspicions.

I interviewed with the Civil Rights Division through the honors program about three years ago. Almost ALL their questions were related to political leanings/views. Maybe this is par for the course in that division considering the subject matter, but I could tell pretty quickly that any reference to a democrat (past or presence) wasn't well received (I look conservative on paper). I was a bit surprised. Obviously, I wasn't given an offer. This simply confirms by suspicions. BTW, my entire life has been about public service.

uh, 6:26, dummy, try reading the report.

Love the idiots who disagree with the DOJ's own internal investigation.

Yes, Honors is hard as hell to get into at any time, but that doesn't mean the system wasn't corrupt.

Its not that hard a job to get. The individual divisions do whatever they feel like and the listed hiring preferences are just boilerplate and ignored. I was middle of my class at NYU and made it to the final round with Antitrust. They seemed to care a lot more about my commitment to Antitrust law than anything else. I am not a minority and did not have law review or any published papers or anything special like that. I also had no conservative or liberal stuff on my resume. This was Fall 2003 by the way. The interviewers didn't ask about anything political, mostly just academic stuff. I expect the ultra snobby types here will doubt the following, but while waiting for a decision I called the office and the assistant there told me exactly where I stood: that I was #26 on the list and they were taking 15 people. They were down to #19 and had 14 acceptances. Pretty good yield but hardly the ultra-competitive opportunity you guys are making it out to be. I was 6 spots away for one of the "main" divisions and I'm not even positive I was in the top half of my class.

Also, I didn't even list Antitrust #1 on my preferences, I listed it #2 after Civil. The top candidates go to top firms or federal clerkships. There aren't a lot of spots in Honors but the competition isn't the best either.

I went to law school with Esther Slater, and I can't say I'm surprised to see her at the center of a partisan scandal. She was a narrow-minded, conservative ideologue back then - not that those types are in short supply at NDLS, but Esther distinguished herself by being particularly priggish, arrogant, and judgmental. I'm sure Esther thought she had it made after her buddies at Jones Day and Professor Bill Kelley (who was involved in the US Attorney resignation scandal) hooked her up with Monica Goodling. Pride goeth before the fall, chickens coming home to roost, karma and all that good stuff. I love the smell of schaudenfreude.

well, one thing is clear - Honors is no longer an honor. if you're conservative and have a pulse, you're in!

my only complaint is that i should have applied. could have at least gotten some of the residual prestige.

i do find it funny that we conservatives think this is no big deal. could you imagine if there was an 97% acceptance rate of blacks while tons of more qualified whites were rejected?

Considering it's being flatly stated by the DOJ that she violated federal law, I don't think that's going to be that hard.

this is NOT old news asshats, and - like a certain neofacists judge's anticatholic and publicly available porn - not a story you can sweep under the rug.

.

I can personally state that the 20-something year old political appointee who interviewed me in October 2004 was there to politicize the process.

I never applied to the honors program so I'm not harboring any sour grapes. I can tell you that in my top 10 Law School twelve people applied to Justice. Of the two who go interviews one was a less then stellar student with a minimal resume, no Law Review, no moot court, poor grades but highly conservative. The other was an all around superstar (left political leanings) who was offered the job.
I suspect that your political beliefs will get you thorough the door at DOJ when you aren’t qualified but they are still hiring people who are undeniably brilliant. The problem is that most people fall into a gray area and the DOJ is only scoping republicans out of the middle and lower end of their applicant pool.

"but they are still hiring people who are undeniably brilliant"

This is what I'm talking about. If only a dozen people in your top 10 school applied, then its not that competitive. Think of how many people tried to get jobs at Cravath, Sullivan etc and how many people tried to get top clerkships. DOJ really aint all that.

Doesn't surprise me. I applied for an internship a couple years ago (having worked at liberal orgs and for democrats during and after college) and the attorney I spoke with on the phone asked me a lot of questions about whether I was a democrat (I was) and made it clear that I would not get the job because of that.

Doesn't surprise me. I applied for an internship a couple years ago (having worked at liberal orgs and for democrats during and after college) and the attorney I spoke with on the phone asked me a lot of questions about whether I was a democrat (I was) and made it clear that I would not get the job because of that.

11:47 & 11:14: Don't forget that a lot of people start in the Honors Program AFTER clerking, so these are not separate applicant pools....

Civil, Civil Rights and Criminal are far more competitive than AT or Immigration jobs.

I can say that at least in many cases, this is true. I actually DID get in through the honors program, but I know the process was politicized and I barely made it despite that. I had been a summer intern there, and so had career people who were pulling for me. I also came from a top-3 law school, with a luckily very high GPA and a federal clerkship (just your average federal district court, nothing fancy). But I had worked at nonprofits and for government in the summers, as well as a Dem congressman. In my interview, the political appointee there asked me about a billion questions about why i hadn't ever worked at a law firm. I did get the job, but found out afterward from one of the career higher-ups who was in the room at the hiring committee meeting that they had to fight for me because "it was a real problem" that I had gone to Harvard, and that they were shocked to find out that the politicals had looked into my voting registration. Luckily, I hadn't ever changed my registration from Independant at that point.

I find it very ironic that Esther Slater was in charge of weeding out "wackos" - has anyone read the Note she published in the Notre Dame Law Review? She argues that patenting human embryos violates the Thirteenth Amendment prohibition against slavery. Even if one agrees in theory with the pro-life agenda, such a position seems to be the embodiment of a fringe, extremist viewpoint - only from the right, not the left. Hypocrite.

More disconcerting to me is that FN 21 of this report fails to include Virginia in the top 20 law schools, a clearly erroneous and unacceptable omission.