The Department of Justice is quashing a report conducted almost two years ago on minority diversity within the department.
On Jan. 16, 2002, Justice issued a press release announcing the independent study. The contract, awarded jointly to KPMG Consulting and Taylor Cox Associates, called for an analysis of the department’s attorney workforce with regard to minority recruitment, hiring and retention.
“We are committed to maintaining a qualified and diverse work force to enhance the integrity and performance of the Justice Department,” Attorney General John Ashcroft said at the time. “Diversity in the administration is vital to the faith and trust the American people have in their legal system.”
Those comments were echoed by then-Deputy Attorney General Larry Thompson, himself an African-American.
“The success of the Justice Department’s mission depends on public confidence in the ability of the department to ensure fair and impartial administration of justice for all Americans,” Thompson said. “To maintain that trust, the department must build and retain an attorney work force that, in addition to a demonstrated commitment to excellence, appropriately reflects the diversity of our society.”
The release noted the report would be done within a few months. Nearly two years later, however, it remains under wraps.
A Justice spokesman confirmed that the study was completed but nevertheless declined to release it.
“The report is not public,” said spokesman Jorge Martinez. “It’s not a public document. I suggest you file a [Freedom of Information Act] request.”
A source who contacted The Hill said the department has stonewalled several requests for the report made under the federal sunshine law last spring. Martinez said he was unaware of such requests.
It is unusual for a federal agency to announce a study — particularly one such as this intended to buoy public confidence in the department — and then not release it.
“Certainly there was much fanfare by the department two years ago in announcing its study and review,” said Wade Henderson, executive director of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights. “The fact that such publicity did not accompany its completion raises important questions.”
Although Justice did not give any reason as to why the study was quashed, two sources familiar with the report attributed its suppression to faulty methodology.
“There’s nothing there,” one source said on the condition of anonymity. “I remember reading the report and thinking, ‘This thing was a colossal waste of money. There’s nothing particularly useful in it.’”
Those sources said the study shows that the percentage of minority attorneys at the Justice Department exceeds the percentage of minority attorneys in the nation as a whole.
But the analysis also includes a comparison of Justice attorney diversity to the percentage of minority professionals nationwide — a category encompassing not only attorneys but stockbrokers, doctors and business executives, as well. In such a comparison, the sources noted, the Justice Department appears to lack diversity.
“It was a huge analytical mistake,” said one source. “That statistical comparison was almost unprofessional. It was basically comparing apples to oranges. If we’re hiring up to or more than the percentage of minority attorneys in the work force, then that’s the relevant number.”
Questions about Ashcroft’s commitment to racial diversity and sensitivity have plagued the department since he was nominated after losing his Senate seat. During his contentious confirmation hearing, Democratic senators sharply questioned his previous opposition to school desegregation and to Ronnie White, a black Clinton judicial nominee. Also at issue was a speech he gave at Bob Jones University at a time when the university opposed interracial dating.
On Sunday, The Washington Post reported that minority members of Ashcroft’s upper echelon of advisers — including Thompson — have recently departed in droves. Whereas once a third of the 12 top Justice employees were minorities, now the only minority is the nominee to head the department’s civil rights division.
While noting that diversity among the department’s rank-and-file attorneys is important, Henderson said diversity among Ashcroft’s senior advisers is paramount.
“Real diversity involves more than simply differences in race, ethnicity and gender,” Henderson added. “Certainly those things are important. But real diversity involves a diversity of perspective that might be included in any analysis of a problem confronted by Justice.”
Email This Page!