Gay Issue Adds to Controversy Over Ashcroft

Attorney general nominee John Ashcroft’s attitude toward gays emerged as a new and potentially damaging point of attack for his opponents Thursday, as a Georgetown University professor charged that Ashcroft had opened a 1985 job interview by asking him whether he had “the same sexual preference as most men.”

Paul Offner, a research professor of public policy, said it was the first of only two questions that then-Gov. Ashcroft asked him during a brief interview for a top health post in Missouri. The other question, Offner said, was about illegal drug use.

The White House challenged the veracity of Offner’s account, and the Republican National Committee charged that liberal special interest groups are expanding their “smear campaign” against Ashcroft.

Offner told his story on the same day that San Francisco philanthropist James C. Hormel charged that Ashcroft had opposed his nomination as ambassador to Luxembourg in 1998 “solely because I am gay.”

Indeed, Democratic members of the Senate Judiciary Committee acted Wednesday to delay for one week that panel’s vote on Ashcroft’s nomination, saying that they needed time to collect more information about his record. But virtually unanimous Republican support for the former Missouri senator appears unlikely to weaken, and his confirmation by the full Senate is expected shortly after next Wednesday’s committee vote.

Ashcroft, President Bush’s most controversial nominee, said through a spokesman that he does not remember asking such a question of Offner and “can’t imagine” having done so.

But the Georgetown professor stood by his account, and he offered as corroboration a Washington friend who said that Offner had told her shortly after the interview about Ashcroft’s questioning of his sexual “preference.”

Offner said he told Ashcroft that he did have the same sexual preference as most men and that he had not used illegal drugs. The interview ended a few minutes later and Offner did not get the job. He said that Ashcroft indicated it was because he was a Democrat.

Offner said he came forward because he was bothered by Ashcroft’s televised denials that he had ever used sexual orientation as an issue in hiring decisions.

“I knew that wasn’t true in my case,” said Offner, who was single at the time and is now married. “In retrospect, I think it was an improper question.”

While an interview question about sexual orientation would not necessarily have been illegal under Missouri law, it would appear to contradict one of Ashcroft’s strongest assertions during his sworn testimony before the Judiciary Committee last week.

In a statement put out by the White House, the director of Ashcroft’s 1985 gubernatorial transition team said that he attended the Offner interview and that Ashcroft “did not ask Paul Offner any questions with regards to his sexual preference.”

Duncan Kincheloe, another transition leader at the time, was less definitive. He said in an interview that, while he does not remember details of the Offner interview, the idea of Ashcroft asking such a question is “implausible” and “preposterous.”

“I would remember if that question had been asked,” he said. “He’d never ask anyone that. We went through dozens or hundreds of interviews, and I never heard that question asked.”

The RNC, pointing to campaign records showing that Offner has made $1,900 in political contributions to Democrats, suggested that his allegations were politically inspired.

Ashcroft, regarded by the gay community as a longtime opponent, testified that “sexual orientation has never been something that I’ve used in hiring in any of the jobs in any of the offices I’ve held. It will not be a consideration in hiring at the Department of Justice. It hasn’t been for me.”

Former ambassador Hormel appeared at a packed news conference Thursday to expand on his accusations against Ashcroft. He had outlined his complaints in writing to the Judiciary Committee last week. Hormel said that Ashcroft had unfairly judged his nomination and intentionally misled senators about his relationship with Hormel.

Although press accounts at the time of the nomination quoted Ashcroft as saying that Hormel’s “gay lifestyle” was a legitimate subject for consideration, Ashcroft denied in his testimony that this was a factor in his opposition. While he refused to say exactly why he deemed Hormel unfit for the job, he said that he based his decision on “the totality” of the nominee’s record, including that he had “known Mr. Hormel for a long time” and had been recruited by him to attend the University of Chicago Law School.

But Hormel, a former dean at the school, told reporters Thursday that he does not remember ever having a conversation with Ashcroft, either in Chicago or in the 34 years since he worked there. Ashcroft’s comments “imply a relationship. There is no such relationship,” Hormel said.

Hormel said he tried to meet with Ashcroft during the debate over his ambassadorial nomination but was refused. After his nomination stalled, then-President Clinton used a “recess appointment” to make him ambassador while Congress was out of session.

Gay-rights advocates said that Ashcroft’s views on sexual orientation deserve closer inspection from the Senate because of the attorney general’s influence on antidiscrimination laws and hate crime enforcement.

The Offner and Hormel allegations, combined with Ashcroft’s voting record in opposition to gay rights issues, “indicate a clear pattern of hostility to gays,” said David M. Smith, senior strategist for the Human Rights Campaign, a gay and lesbian advocacy group.

While in the Senate, Ashcroft opposed a measure that would have extended hate crime protections to sexual orientation and spoke out against a bill prohibiting workplace discrimination against gays.

A champion of the Christian right, Ashcroft has also enraged gay rights groups by declaring homosexuality “a choice which can be made and unmade” and saying that legal protections for gays send the “wrong signals” to young people.

Questions were also raised Thursday on another issue--tobacco--in which Ashcroft’s statements in his confirmation hearing appeared to contradict his actions as a U.S. senator.

Before the Judiciary Committee, Ashcroft suggested that he did not have a negative view of the Justice Department’s lawsuit against the tobacco industry and would bring impartial judgment to his decision about how to proceed on it.

But as recently as last summer, Ashcroft told a Missouri constituent who represented a coalition of tobacco-control groups that he opposed the suit.

In his letter to Steve Sorkin, written Aug. 24, Ashcroft outlined his opposition to anti-smoking legislation in Congress and to the Justice Department lawsuit. It alleges that the five major U.S. cigarette manufacturers violated the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act by conspiring to mislead the public and the government about the dangers of smoking.

“While I am deeply troubled by the increase in tobacco use by teenagers today, I do not believe that this lawsuit will help in the fight to curb teen smoking,” Ashcroft wrote.

He went on to say, “I am concerned that the DOJ lawsuit could set an unwise precedent leading to the federal government filing lawsuits against countless other legal industries.”

Ashcroft’s position, which is well understood by the business community, has resulted in a widespread expectation both by tobacco companies and Wall Street analysts that as attorney general he would either settle the lawsuit or drop it altogether.

In his confirmation hearing, however, Ashcroft sounded open-minded about the suit.

“I have no predisposition to dismiss the suit,” Ashcroft said. “I would evaluate that suit, conferring with members of the Department of Justice. I don’t want to make a statement ignorant of the kinds of facts and considerations that ought to inform my judgment when I get to the Justice Department.”

Efforts to reach an Ashcroft spokesman about the letter were unsuccessful.