Note to the Department of Justice Inspector General

When a Civil Rights Division employee is accused of being”pro-black,” the problem is not harassment.

When three attorneys for the Voting Section of the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department accuse a colleague of being “pro-black,” the primary problem is not “harassment” (p. 125) and anti-harassment training is not a solution. And no, using commitment to civil rights as hiring criterion for the Civil Rights Division is not inappropriate, any more than commitment to crime control is inappropriate in hiring a prosecutor.

Footnote Yes, this took place under Bush the Lesser. Why do you ask?

Author: Mark Kleiman

Professor of Public Policy at the NYU Marron Institute for Urban Management and editor of the Journal of Drug Policy Analysis. Teaches about the methods of policy analysis about drug abuse control and crime control policy, working out the implications of two principles: that swift and certain sanctions don't have to be severe to be effective, and that well-designed threats usually don't have to be carried out. Books: Drugs and Drug Policy: What Everyone Needs to Know (with Jonathan Caulkins and Angela Hawken) When Brute Force Fails: How to Have Less Crime and Less Punishment (Princeton, 2009; named one of the "books of the year" by The Economist Against Excess: Drug Policy for Results (Basic, 1993) Marijuana: Costs of Abuse, Costs of Control (Greenwood, 1989) UCLA Homepage Curriculum Vitae Contact:

3 thoughts on “Note to the Department of Justice Inspector General”

  1. Is this somehow worse that a majority of the attorneys being convinced that whites should never be the beneficiaries of voting rights enforcement, or blacks subjected to it? That a facially neutral law should never be enforced in a neutral fashion? And that this ‘principle’ was so important anyone who dissented from it should be fired?

    The report treats this as an ordinary political disagreement, but it strikes me as practically obscene.

Comments are closed.