Civil Service and Censorship

Definition: Nonmilitary administrative staff responsible for implementing government programs

Significance: Efforts to limit the politicization of a government’s bureaucracy may limit public servants’ freedom of expression

The development of bureaucracy as a form of public administration in the United States was popularized in the nineteenth century. It responded to the criticism that governmental positions were dispensed through a “spoils system” that rewarded party loyalists with government jobs. In some European countries, such jobs were literally purchased by wealthy individuals and families. This system did little, however, to ensure the objectivity, or even competence, of public servants. It also subjected the entire system to massive employee turnover whenever political leadership changed. To remedy this, the system of bureaucracy was designed to provide for the efficiency, objectivity, and accountability of public administration. (The British were among the first to successfully implement such a system on a large scale.) As defined by sociologist Max Weber and others, the bureaucracy should be a professional corps of government workers whose duty it is to implement policies and programs with a minimum of latitude.

As part of the development of bureaucracy, a system of civil service was established in various countries as a way to isolate personnel decisions from political exigencies. Hiring and promotion is accomplished through standardized tests and other criteria, and firing of employees with civil service status can only be carried out for documented reasons that meet established criteria. In all these ways, civil servants are protected from political pressures and retribution for such actions as “whistle-blowing.” At the same time, however, the civil service places certain special restrictions on employees. As representatives of the government and not of particular parties or factions within it, civil servants have been barred from various forms of political expression. In addition, due to the crucial nature of governmental operations, civil servants have frequently been prevented from striking. These two sets of restrictions may constitute forms of censorship.

Restrictions

The prohibition on political activity by public employees has a long history in the United States. The 1883 Civil Service Act (Pendleton Act) created a Civil Service Commission (replaced in 1978 by the Office of Personnel Management and the Merit Systems Protection Board). Among other provisions, the Civil Service Act prohibited all employees of the U.S. government from making political contributions and endorsements. The act responded to the widespread perception, which rapidly escalated to public outrage after the Civil War, that federal employment had become a spoils system. The need to return the federal bureaucracy to its nonpoliticized ideal was assumed to outweigh restrictions upon federal employees’ freedom of political action.

Further restrictions were adopted in later years. A decree by President Theodore Roosevelt in 1902 prohibited civil service employees from taking “any active part” in political campaigns. During the McCarthy era, many public employees were subject to loyalty oaths, which required that they renounce various political affiliations and beliefs. The Act to Prevent Pernicious Political Activities (passed in 1939 and amended in 1940, together known as the Hatch Act) elaborated on the provisions of Roosevelt’s 1902 decree, prohibiting such activities as the raising of money for partisan causes, making campaign speeches, and distributing campaign material. It also barred federal employees from running for or holding political office themselves. The Hatch Act was inspired by revelations that federal employees were being coerced into contributing to partisan campaigns to protect their jobs. The restrictions on political activity were challenged twice in the Supreme Court, which upheld the constitutionality of the law both times. The Democrat-controlled U.S. Congress repeatedly tried to liberalize the Hatch Act in the 1970s and 1980s, but Republican presidents consistently vetoed reform measures that were passed.

A bill to reform the Hatch Act passed the Congress and was signed by Democratic president Bill Clinton in 1993. Under this legislation, federal employees were now permitted to engage in partisan political activity and to hold positions in political party organizations. Prohibitions against political activity during work hours, soliciting campaign funds, and the running for partisan political office remained, however. President Barack Obama signed the Hatch Act Modernization Act in 2012, which, among other provisions, changed the prohibition of state employees from running for elective office to those who are paid entirely by federal grants or loans. The Hatch Act has also been amended to remind federal employees that they cannot engage in political discourse on social media.

Government employees also have been limited in their ability to launch “job actions.” Many countries, including the United States, treat governmental employment as a public trust. This understanding places civil servants under a special set of regulations concerning hiring, firing, wages, raises, benefits, and other aspects of employment. Some of these, particularly restrictions on the ability to strike against what are perceived to be unfair working conditions, might be construed as limitations on expression. Yet many governments consider strikes to be a violation of sovereignty, in that they concede governmental authority to interest groups. There are also practical considerations about the necessity of delivering public services.

Various limitations of this type were placed upon federal employees in the United States during the twentieth century. President Theodore Roosevelt’s 1902 decree prohibited employees in the U.S. executive branch from soliciting pay increases. Federal employees were granted the right to organize in 1912, but collective bargaining was still severely restricted. Federal employees are not permitted to strike, as affirmed in the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947. The act held that striking federal workers would be “discharged immediately . . . and shall forfeit [their] civil service status, if any, and shall not be eligible for employment for three years by the United States or any such agency.” A strike by federal air traffic controllers in the 1980s highlighted this issue, and President Ronald Reagan’s subsequent firing of the striking workers underscored the government’s determination to enforce the law’s provisions.

The administration of governmental programs and policies through a civil service thus draws in a number of censorship issues. If the civil service is required to be nonpolitical and nonpartisan, limitations upon political activity by civil servants clearly are necessary. The need for restrictions is underscored by the corruption that has been manifest in their absence. Further, if the provision of some governmental services is understood to be critical, then restrictions on job actions must be in place. The debate concerning such limitations upon civil servants entails, as it often does with censorship issues, the balance between individual rights and the public good.

Bibliography

Denhardt, Robert B. Public Administration: An Action Orientation 7th ed. Belmont: Wadsworth, 2014. Print.

Dwoskin, Robert P. Rights of the Public Employee. Chicago: ALA, 1978. Print.

Lee, Yong S. Public Personnel Administration and Constitutional Vices. Westport: Quorum, 1992. Print.

Maranto, Robert, and David Shultz. A Short History of the United States Civil Service. Lanham: UP of America, 1991. Print.

Rein, Lisa. "No Tweeting What You Actually Think about Clinton or Carson If You’re on the Clock: New Rules for Feds." Washington Post. Washington Post, 13 Nov. 2015. Web. 20 Nov. 2015.

Smith, Bruce L. R., ed. The Higher Civil Service in Europe and Canada: Lessons for the United States. Washington: Brookings, 1984. Print.

Sylvia, Ronald D. Critical Issues in Public Personnel Policy. Pacific Grove: Brooks/Cole, 1989. Print.