In a message dated 02-02-21 15:24:08 EST, Indigo Nights wrote:

<< I take it this was a nonpaying position?  Is that
 correct?  If it were for pay, it seems that it may
 have violated the EEOC rules of Equal Oppportunity.
 One should not discriminate on the basis of many
 things, including political persuasion! >>

As others have already indicated, there is a big difference between jobs,
paid or unpaid, which are competitive and those which are appointed.
Although I don't claim to know either the letter or nuances of applicable
laws, it seems to me that it is not unreasonable to expect appointed
positions to be exempt from the rules which govern competitive jobs.  In the
U.S., candidates for cabinet positions and many others are selected or
appointed by the President, subject to congressional approval.  Generally,
with what are often called "token" or "good will" exceptions, the appointees
tend to be members of the President's party or at least in agreement with his
policies in their specialties; why would a President want to appoint someone
who will fight with him?  If the appointment process is highly politicized,
why would it surprise anyone if Senate confirmation hearings often include
disingenuous, thinly veiled attacks on the candidate's politics?

Commissions and advisory groups appointed by the President similarly can be
expected to be influenced by political considerations.  Occasionally a
President seeks to get a truly bipartisan, diverse group when a problem needs
to be studied and he really doesn't know what results he wants, but if he has
an agenda or wants to influence the policies they develop, he will logically
choose people of his own political persuasion.  Although you and I, if we
were President, surely would always take the high ground and take great pains
to select the best candidates with absolutely no regard to their politics,
the mere mortals who get elected to high office have not yet attained our
higher state of consciousness and ethics--so I think we should cut them some
slack out of pity for their underdevelopment.  And consider the wishes of the
average underdeveloped voters, who actually expect their candidate to do
everything in his power to advance his policies through the appointment
process.

After all, things used to be even worse.  Originally American politicians
operated almost exclusively on the "spoils system."  Most government
employees got their jobs through political patronage.  The whole reason the
U.S. enacted a Civil Service system was to combat abuses of patronage (and, I
suspect, because as the government expanded, it just got to be too much
trouble to worry about a person's politics for every low-level clerical job),
and the innovative notion that ability to perform a job well might be
preferable to political issues gradually got a foothold.  So career
(competitive) government jobs tend to be non-political, more or less.  But I
think it would be unreasonable to expect temporary jobs, especially those
created through presidential initiative, to be non-political.

Having said all that, I agree that it would be a good idea if advisory
commissions and other groups in the arts and cultural areas (and certainly in
the sciences) were non-partisan.  But I think you would have to devise
another system to achieve such balance.  I don't think there's any way you
can expect appointments by any President of any party to ever be
non-political.  I actually think this is not necessarily a bad thing,
although just at this moment I forget why I think so.

I don't mean to sound cynical, just realistic.

David Haberstich

=========================================================
Important Subscriber Information:

The Museum-L FAQ file is located at http://www.finalchapter.com/museum-l-faq/ . You may obtain detailed information about the listserv commands by sending a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "help" (without the quotes).

If you decide to leave Museum-L, please send a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "Signoff Museum-L" (without the quotes).