The Biden Administration has proposed
new federal guidelines that would politicize the civil service and potentially
bar Christians and others who hold disfavored opinions from government
employment. Critics say the president’s
proposal essentially states, “Conservatives need not apply.”
Current federal law deems an applicant “unsuitable”
for federal employment if the applicant engages in “knowing and willful
engagement in acts or activities designed to overthrow the U.S. government by
force.” But the Office of Personnel
Management (OPM) proposal would strike the words “by force with a
collection of provisions that are broad, ill-defined, and over-inclusive,” said
a comment offered by Family Research Council (FRC). “We urge the OPM to withdraw the proposed rule
changes.”
Removing the words “by force” renders
the rule “dangerously vague. Such lack
of clarity would give the government great leeway in keeping people out of
federal employment that it did not like,” Chris Gacek, coalitions senior
research fellow at FRC who guided the group’s comment, told The
Washington Stand. “The provisions
repeatedly ran afoul of First Amendment norms — and would imperil the rights of
clergy and religious believers.”
The Biden Administration admits its new,
legally binding employment policy includes “more nuanced factors,” but only
punishes “conduct that is not protected by the First Amendment.” Still, FRC objects that the code
contains “vague and broad provisions that could target disfavored groups with
unpopular beliefs — including groups of religious believers whose beliefs not
infrequently challenge societal norms and loyalties.” For instance, one part of the revised policy
would ban acts of “force, violence, intimidation, or coercion with the purpose
of denying others the free exercise of their rights under the U.S. Constitution
or any state constitution.”
The Biden Administration has repeatedly
stated the U.S. Constitution contains a right to an abortion, in contravention of
a current Supreme Court ruling. Further,
“the idea that mere speech can be deemed ‘violence’ has gained some acceptance
in much of America,” FRC’s comment states. “Such thinking, if absorbed into OPM
legal practice, could transform pure speech into ‘violence,’ ‘intimidation,’
and ‘coercion.’ ” Yet the underlying
action, of engaging in free speech, “does not seem far removed from teaching,
instructing, or preaching doctrine — a common practice in churches, seminaries,
and schools.” It would also deny government
employment to any applicant who belongs to a group with “unlawful aims,” a term
FRC found broad enough to include those who sheltered runaway slaves on
the Underground Railroad.
FRC asked Biden officials if a pastor who allows an illegal
immigrant to take sanctuary inside his church, or who holds services in
defiance of a pandemic order, could be denied government employment. “There needs to be a precise definition of
violence in the rule to preclude such unconstitutional, post-modern interpretations
of the law,” FRC continued. Since
the regulation’s current wording does not require criminal conviction, “how
does the OPM plan to decide whether state constitutional provisions have
been violated? The request for clarity
comes as Democrats classify an ever-widening panoply of actions as acts of “insurrection,”
a term legally condemned by the U.S. Constitution. These actions include refusing to
automatically mail ballots to inactive voters, automatically registering
everyone with a driver’s license to vote — even voting to remove then-Rep. Liz
Cheney (WY-R) from her House leadership position. Using broad definitions of such terminology in
the national or state constitutions, Democratic officials have sued to keep
Republican candidates — Marjorie Taylor Green (GA-R) and Rep. David Eastman (AK-R)
— off the ballot. Both Democrats’
disenfranchising lawsuits proved unsuccessful. Yet under Biden’s proposed federal employment
guidelines, applicants would never see their day in court. Instead, the language “would allow hiring
managers to reject candidates solely on the grounds of being lawfully critical
of government policy,” said a statement spearheaded by the Heritage
Foundation (HF) and signed by 41 people representing 35
organizations, including Quena González of FRC. “The terms used in the proposed change, ‘intimidate’
and ‘coerce,’ have become synonymous — wrongly so — in the eyes of some, with
vigorous, active speech that seeks to change opinions and federal and state
laws.” As a result, “opinions on abortion, the Second Amendment, or climate
change, or membership in an association that actively works to change the law
on such issues, whatever side of the political aisle they are, could be used by
a hiring manager to unfairly reject an otherwise well-qualified, excellent
employee.”
The statement — which calls the OPM
regulation “unwarranted and dangerous” — has been signed by former HF
President Kevin Roberts, Reagan Administration OPM Director Donald J. Devine,
former HUD Secretary Dr. Ben Carson, Leadership Institute President
Morton Blackwell, Sandy Rios of the American Family Association, Claremont
Institute President Ryan P. Williams, Concerned Women for America
President Penny Nance, Jon Schweppe of the American Principles Project,
and Jordan Sekulow of ACLJ Action, among others.
The rule accelerates what critics call
Biden’s pattern of politicizing the federal bureaucracy. The White House demanded members of the Consumer
Financial Protection Board (CFPB) quit and, when they refused,
launched investigations into recalcitrant conservatives. “It’s very clear what’s happening — it’s
forcing people out who are not political actors,” a former CFPB employee
told the Government Executive website. “This
is being done in a pretty underhanded way and, frankly, they are getting away
with it.”
Such efforts stretch back to Biden’s
very first day in office, when the president demanded National Labor
Relations Board (NLRB) General Counsel Peter Robb resign or be
fired. Robb’s tenure did not end for
months, and a previous administration’s appointees have typically served out
their full terms alongside new members. Yet
in a violation of norms, Biden proceeded to fire both Robb and his assistant,
Alice Stock, placing the agency under the leadership of former union lawyer
Jennifer Abruzzo. He then fired the
general counsel of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC),
Sharon Gustafson, after she refused to resign, as well as Social Security
Commissioner Andrew Saul and religious liberty/civil rights official Roger
Severino.
Biden went on to clear-cut numerous
members of the Council of the Administrative Conference of the United States,
the National Capital Planning Commission, and to terminate all 10
members of the Federal Services Impasse Panel (which also deals with
labor unions’ concerns). The White House
then set its sights on the military, targeting 18 Trump appointees to military
advisory boards such as the Air Force Academy, West Point, and the Naval
Academy. Biden also fired members of the
Homeland Security Advisory Council and the Administrative Conference
of the United States.
Fantasies of depriving one’s political
enemies of the ability to earn a living, in the public or private sector, have
increasingly consumed the Left. In 2020,
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (NY-D) endorsed the work of the Trump
Accountability Project to blacklist “Trump sycophants” from gainful
employment. “In the Biden regime, the
new rule could more simply be written as ‘conservatives need not apply,’ ” said
HF President Kevin Roberts.
Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.
Chaplain (Colonel-Ret), U.S. Army
Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel