Why So Few Choose to Be Among the Chosen

A few years ago, I co-taught the Capstone seminar for 22 second-year graduate students at the University of Pennsylvania’s prestigious Fels Center of Government. Earning master’s degrees in various aspects of government and public affairs at the end of that semester were 14 Phi Beta Kappas, several former Rhodes scholars, a passel of honors bachelors’ degree holders and a majority who had rich backgrounds as aides to Congress or assistants to various mayors and governors.

During the final class meeting, we polled each student about his or her career plans after graduation. With one exception, all of these bright young people excitedly reported their success in finding coveted positions with private corporations and industries, not with governmental agencies or public organizations. Why? Because they feared the effects of press intrusion and unwarranted notoriety on their children and families and felt that given the conservatively capped government salaries and other restricted public employment amenities, the gains from public service simply were not worth the pain.

The years that I describe were 1986 through 1989. I wonder if these students feel vindicated today when they look at the cannibalization of public servants that soaks the front pages of national newspapers.

There are numerous recent cases of character assassination and reputation assault that would discourage any sane person from accepting high government appointment. Often, an entire family will be vilified by broad allegations of “appearances of impropriety” that, whether proved or not, remain indelibly inscribed in the media’s memory, to be retrieved as fodder for any future publicity.

It should come as no surprise then that when it comes to service in a national public administration, few choose to be chosen. The current contretemps over the speculated role of Alexis Herman in the Democratic National Committee’s fund-raising investigation is a graphic and dramatic case in point.

Herman’s primary responsibility in the White House for the past four years has been to reach out to constituents, especially traditionally excluded or under-represented classes, to make sure that they felt embraced. Since these groups include clergy, small business owners, labor groups, minorities and women who often also feel that their contributions do not count, Herman’s office was responsible for correcting that impression. Herman’s office existed to facilitate the inclusion of their opinions, encourage their influence and recognize their civic and entrepreneurial power.

Alexis Herman did her job well. This fact has been underreported and underestimated. Unfortunately, the decision to leak records of the many legitimate meetings that she arranged for diverse groups of Americans added to the problem and was unhelpful at best, cynical at least.

There is no doubt among women and minorities that minority women have the hardest time being accepted in positions of authority and in overcoming ingrained stereotypes and prejudices about race and gender. Sniping and sabotage motivated by these biases alone have torpedoed many women’s and minorities’ career advancements.

This reality is further complicated by the growing occupational hazards of high-level government service and compounded by ambiguous ideas of loyalty and the deadly “friendly fire” from within the administration’s own ranks. The press then enters upon a feeding frenzy, resulting last week in many prominent photos of Herman in the news reports, the substance of which had very little to do with her, and virtually nothing that accurately explained her legitimate responsibilities in the White House job she held.

It should be anticipated that eventually the best qualified and experienced public service professionals will opt for some other line of work. Americans will then well-deserve the resultant gang of dispirited bureaucratic drones, who will probably provoke little scandal because they will do very little that makes much difference.

One hopes that this prospect will provide added support and encouragement to the Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources to move forward with a speedy and positive confirmation of Herman for the Labor post. It also might challenge and invite smart graduate students and other young professionals to choose public service over a corporate career.