We’ve all been riveted by the tragedy that occurred in Charlottesville a few weekends ago, as well as the controversy that has transpired in its aftermath. That controversy has been the subject of hours of discussion and debate; from mainstream and social media to the office water cooler, we’ve been torn (and in some cases, torn apart) by its images and its implications, and it shows no signs of dissipating.
Those implications bear on the federal workplace and the federal workforce. Both are a microcosm of these United States and, regardless of where individual civil servants may stand on what happened in Charlottesville, it is time for the federal government’s career leadership to step forward and take a stand. The hate — and the hate groups — that precipitated all of this can have no place in the federal workspace, and our government’s career leadership needs to say so.
That’s not just an admonition to senior career executives; in my opinion, it applies to leaders and front-line employees at all levels of government, as well as those who represent them … organizations like the Senior Executives Association and the Federal Managers Association, as well as the federal employee unions. It is time for them to speak up and speak out on this issue.
Too political you say? Not the place or prerogative of career civil servants, who should be seen and not heard? Then just look at what the Joint Chiefs had to say about this. They too are career government leaders, civil servants who just happen to wear our country’s uniform, but they had no qualms about publicly saying that this kind of hate, and the various forms of discrimination that manifest it, have no place in our armed forces. That took courage, to be sure, but that’s what leaders are supposed to have, and I don’t think our civilian civil servants should be excused or exempt from demonstrating that courage as well.
What about the Office of Personnel Management? Shouldn’t it take the lead on this issue? After all, it’s the agency that sets governmentwide civil service policy, so it would be entirely appropriate for it to speak out against hate speech and sponsorship in the federal workplace. Indeed, one could argue that it has an institutional responsibility to do so. And if I’m not mistaken, there are rules that ban such activities already on the books. However, passively (or tacitly) relying on those rules is not enough in this instance. In my view, OPM needs to take far more aggressive, affirmative action … nothing less than a bold administrative “line in the sand“ that says this kind of behavior will not be tolerated.
I know that’s easy for me to say, but harder for OPM to do. However, I did work there once, and I’d like to think that my OPM colleagues and I would have advocated such affirmative action to our director at the time. And I knowing her as I do, I have no doubt that she would have had the courage to speak out on this issue, just as the Joint Chiefs have done. Unfortunately, OPM is without a confirmed director at the moment, so a decision to do so must fall on the shoulders of its career leaders. I hope they’re doing some soul searching in that regard, and that ultimately they’ll do the right thing.
I would also hope that those political appointees who head our departments and agencies (at least those relatively few who are in place) would take the same stand, but that may be asking too much of them. After all, unlike their career counterparts, those appointees serve at the pleasure of the president, so for them to speak out on this issue could be misconstrued as disloyal — even if their message is carefully crafted to navigate around all of the provocative rhetoric at play here. And that could have severe personal consequences for them. So whether they speak up or not is a matter of individual conscience. I’ll leave it at that.
However, I won’t leave my career colleagues alone. I would argue that career leaders have a different social contract with the American people. They have more freedom — and frankly, even more responsibility — to speak out. After all, they are ultimately accountable for the day-to-day safety and sanctity of the federal workplace and those who labor there, and it is no exaggeration to suggest that that is exactly what’s at stake here. Simply put, in words or deeds, hate speech and the organizations that espouse it have no place in that workplace, and I believe that their employees are looking to someone to say so. I know I am.
And for those that suggest that OPM and/or individual career leaders should leave this alone because it involves the exercise of free speech and personal choice, they should be reminded that the Supreme Court long ago held that public employees are not unfettered in that regard … at least not in the government workplace. Rather, to be protected in that workplace, their speech must involve a matter of public policy within the purview of the public official or organization to whom that speech is directed. Clearly, hate is not a matter of public policy, so hate speech is not protected in this context.
Dr. Ron Sanders is director of the University of South Florida’s School of Public Affairs. A retired career federal executive with almost 40 years of public service, Sanders has been contributing to Federal Times since 2013.
