DOJ Inspector General Releases Monica Goodling Report:
You can read the report here.
UPDATE: Looking over the report, I think it's important to keep in mind the critical line between the use of political considerations in hiring for political positions and the use of political considerations in hiring for career slots. The former is of course okay; the latter is not. The report does note the difference, although the way the report is structured the two are sometimes presented together. (Also, while slots at OLC are technically career slots, I've always though that this is more a matter of form than substance: As a practical matter it seems that most OLC attorneys come in for Administrations they support and then leave when their side gets voted out.)
ANOTHER UPDATE: Here's an example of the shenanigans that the report discovered:
UPDATE: Looking over the report, I think it's important to keep in mind the critical line between the use of political considerations in hiring for political positions and the use of political considerations in hiring for career slots. The former is of course okay; the latter is not. The report does note the difference, although the way the report is structured the two are sometimes presented together. (Also, while slots at OLC are technically career slots, I've always though that this is more a matter of form than substance: As a practical matter it seems that most OLC attorneys come in for Administrations they support and then leave when their side gets voted out.)
ANOTHER UPDATE: Here's an example of the shenanigans that the report discovered:
A career attorney from the Department’s Criminal Division was detailed to the ODAG [Office of the Deupty Attorney General] in July 2005 for a short period to work on the Department’s Project Safe Neighborhoods initiative, as well as other issues such as anti-gangs initiatives, violent crime, and firearms.P. 53-54.
In an October 2005 e-mail exchange, Sampson told William Mercer, who was the Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General at the time, that he thought highly of the candidate and supported the possibility of extending her detail to the ODAG for a longer period. Mercer replied that “Jan [Williams] says she’s a big D.” Sampson replied, “I’ve heard that – even so, she’s very strong.” Sampson told us that he wanted this attorney for an ODAG detail and did not care that she was a Democrat. Sampson told us he knew that the candidate supported the Project Safe Neighborhoods initiative, which was her initial assignment in the ODAG, and so her political affiliation did not matter to him. The candidate’s detail was extended several times, and she served in the ODAG until July 2007 when she became Counselor to the OLP Assistant Attorney General.
Elston told us, however, that either Williams or Goodling told him that they did not want to extend the detail because she was a Democrat. Elston said that the detailee’s supervisor told him that if the detailee left ODAG, he would “throw himself out the window.” Elston said he felt the same way about her. According to Elston, for a period of time the OAG would only extend the detail on a month-to-month basis, until Goodling grudgingly extended it for 6 months.
I can only hope that such patriotic partisanship is ferreting out all the Commies in the CIA, FBI and especially the State Department.
Commies: They're everywhere, and the only way to stop them is shenanigans.
Do you have any evidence of this, other than strictly anecdotal?
I'm sure that only Republicans discriminate against Democrats and that the opposite has never occurred.
It will be interesting to see what Mukasey, and relevant bar associations, do about that.
There is no evidence cited that this incident had any improper effect whatever on DOJ policy.
The famous no harm, no foul dictum.
Several years ago, a favorite attack line by the Federalist Society against liberal judges was that they were eroding the “rule of law.” But here we have reports of law breaking, and many of you simply want to ignore it or pretend it’s okay. So if this is okay, why are liberal judges who are allegedly bending the “rule of law” any worse than you?
I don't think the problem is with hiring people who make policy. However, I do think think it is an improper effect on DOJ's policy to consider politics for career positions.
Only Vince Foster knows -- or, rather, knew.
Indeed. It's too bad Hitlery killed Vince Foster during a lesbian love spat.
No doubt to fuel her husband's international drug cartel connections . . . The American Spectator and Richard Mellon Scaife have brought it all to light.
Does that satisfy your standards?
I'm constantly surprised by how blase so many conservatives and republicans have become about blatant violations of the law. I believe that individuals have an obligation to follow the law, and that it is scandalous when Justice Department officials blatantly violate the law. Oddly, that now seems to be a partisan point of view.
Orin, what do you mean by "while slots at OLC are technically career slots...?" Is there an asterisk somewhere in the job description which makes them political?
A questionaire that was used for political apointees:
That doesn't seem crazy at all! We should assume that the Dems acted this bad or worse, say it's par for the course and move on!
serve him?
I suppose,
"He signs the paychecks," wouldn't be a good answer.
I merely said if the cited illustration was representative, I am not too troubled.
For the record, I am not in favor of political shennanigans within the Justice Department like the one Snotdog (his selected screen name, no slur intended) noted.
I am in favor of giving an elected administration (be it Democrat or Republican) leeway in initiating and enforcing its view of how the Justice Department exercises its prosecutorial discretion and law-enforcement emphasis.
It is not for career JD officials to do that.
I will also note that sadly, Ms. Goodling and some other appointees in the Bush Adminstration, seemed to me to be singularly unequipped to handle the jobs that were entrusted to them.
That includes AG Gonzales, whom I am afraid was about as competant as the unlamented Janet Reno. Not a good comparator to strive for, it seems to me.
Here's hoping that the next administration deals better with these issues than Clinton's and W's have done.
If so, who do they swear to serve? A person or the people?
Just wonderin'.
Regarding your comment: "I am in favor of giving an elected administration (be it Democrat or Republican) leeway in initiating and enforcing its view of how the Justice Department exercises its prosecutorial discretion and law-enforcement emphasis."
Administrations have this already, which is why political appointees are that - political appointees. It is against the law to use political affiliation when hiring in the civil service (I do not know about AUSA's though). Moreover, if a civil service employee cannot follow orders, they are insubordinate and can be disciplined.
There are fine appellate litigators in the DOJ who have argued administration policy going back many administrations. It seems wrong that they could be hurt simply because they are married to the wrong person, gay, or otherwise not in lock-step with Goodling's beliefs.
But atleast Monica's good work has kept us safe from the terrorists who want to brainwash children into gay abortionists, who hate America and Jesus.
Possibly by design. This whole thing just reeks of an intentional Peter Principle.
The Oath of Office and the Constitution
Oath
I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.
5 U.S.C. §3331
As Federal civil servants, we take an oath of office by which we swear to support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America. The Constitution not only establishes our system of government, it actually defines the work role for Federal employees - "to establish Justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty."
The history of the Oath for Federal employees can be traced to the Constitution, where Article II includes the specific oath the President takes - to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States." Article VI requires an oath by all other government officials from all three branches, the military, and the States. It simply states that they "shall be bound by oath of affirmation to support the Constitution." The very first law passed by the very first Congress implemented Article VI by setting out this simple oath in law: "I do solemnly swear or affirm (as the case may be) that I will support the Constitution of the United States."
The wording we use today as Executive Branch employees is now set out in chapter 33 of title 5, United States Code. The wording dates to the Civil War and what was called the Ironclad Test Oath. Starting in 1862, Congress required a two-part oath. The first part, referred to as a "background check," affirmed that you were not supporting and had not supported the Confederacy. The second part addressed future performance, that is, what you would swear to do in the future. It established a clear, publicly sworn accountability. In 1873, Congress dropped the first part of the Ironclad Test Oath, and in 1884 adopted the wording we use today.
I was asked which primary I had last voted in (which is how you register as a Rep or a Dem in my state) and I told the interviewer. He told ME that ordinarily this would disqualify me, but that he had received my resume from his state party.
The job was mine. However, I was told not to tell anyone that I was a member of the opposing party. I was there to watch as the administration flushed other members of my party out of their jobs so that loyalists could be put in.
Political patronage is a sad fact of life. It was stupid and wrong for Goodling and the others at DOJ to do this...but they were just clumsy in doing what the Dems do in a more effective way.
C'mon...the vast majority of government employees in DC are Dems....and they do a pretty good job of making certain that only Dems are hired. I read at another post at the VC that the end effect of this "scandal" is that the ratio of liberals to conservatives hired was reduced from 5 to 1 down to 3 to 1.
Was that hiring decision illegal under state or federal law? I do not know. I do know that anecdotal stories prove nothing for either side. Ihave seen when members of one party were flushed out because they supported the wrong person from the "right party." What does that prove? Nothing.
When you say Goodling and company acted stupid and wrong, did you mean to include illegal as well?
Tu quoque.
Norquist said we should "drown it [government] in the bathtub." That's one way to destroy it. Another way would be to hire lots of Regency College grads. Either way, it seems to be a goal of the GOP. We're seeing what happens when the people we elect to run the government are people who have declared their desire to destroy it.
We are all best served if career government positions are filled by people from all legal political persuasions. Differing points of view can only benefit the decision makers.
There is a lot that needs to be done to improve the professionalism and quality of career civil servants.
I agree with everything you stated.
Both political parties will attract those in it for themselves and others who are driven by ideology above all else. It is not good for the Republic regardless of which political party the miscreants affiliate with.
150 years since civil service started. You would think that would be enough time.
From p. 115 of the Report:
The recommendation section does not advocate a criminal referal so I assume she violated no criminal law. Am I wrong?
As for the 150 year history of the civil service, I think the modern civil service really dates from the 1930s when there was a major expansion of government responsibility at the local and federal levels. So we really have less than a century's worth of experience. We still have not found an effective way of motivating personnel and efficiently using funds. Efforts to purge the civil service of political patronage have never been totally effective. And, as it grows in size, the bureaucracy itself becomes a separate political interest group.
If those numbers are correct, then even if a law can be shown to have been broken, I applaud the results and personally would never vote to convict unless it could be shown that an ideologically zero-sum result was built into the prosecution's efforts.
Anything else is the criminalization of politics, the next step past which is violent revolution.
Yours, TDP, ml, msl, &pfpp
So you're seriously arguing that because the broken laws didn't carry criminal penalties, it's not important that they were broken?
You aren't a practicing lawyer, are you? I mean, I'd love to see you make that kind of an argument in front of a judge.
Of course this is all a lot of opinion. Had this been an indictment instead of a report, then perhaps I might consider it more interesting.
I don't want to defend Goodling at all, but in this climate it's difficult to accept these sorts of reports as anything except people attempting to settle scores.
Perhaps in 5 or 10 years we can get a better idea of the things that actually went down. The real downside will be that this sort of thing is going to become the norm as power shifts.
Actually, Goodling outright admitted that she broke the law. That isn't opinion, it's fact.
As I pointed out above, the key players here were granted immunity for their testimony before Congress, effectively precluding criminal indictment.
It's amazing how shameless a lot of you are in defense of your own kind. Rule of law? Totally meaningless, as long as it's a Republican.
Absolutely correct.
Not many here are defending what happened. It was totally out of bounds. I just think some of the indignation is overwrought. People rationalize these kind of BS decisions (either affirmatively discriminating against Candidate A because of affiliations or pushing for Candidate B over neutral candidates because of affiliations). It happens, and it's an unfortunate fact of life when partisan actors make hiring decisions for non-partisan positions. I for one am all too happy that this was uncovered, and I hope some good comes from it in the next Administration, no matter who is in power.
And no, I'm not suggesting all Administrations are equally guilty. I don't believe you'd see this as much in a McCain Administration as you would in a Bush Administration. But it happens in every Administration, albeit to varying degrees. Unless, of course, you think Rs are the only biased people in the country and that Ds are uniquely able to put all bias aside in decision-making. That's the sort of polarized thinking, by the way, that usually leads to biased decision-making ("my side is better, we always do what's right, the other side is evil," etc.).
Well, technically she admitted what she felt she did. That it broke the law is opinion until it's been through court. The fact that she says she did it, or that someone else says she did it, isn't controlling without an actual finding. And it's important to remember that immunity from prosecution is not the same as pleading guilty.
And that makes it a lot easier to lob accusations against someone, since there will never be a court to officially call it. Honestly, have you never been through something like this before?
I'm actually not a republican, and I think you do yourself a dis-service by being so quick to try to label me. As I said, I don't care about Goodling (though I admit if she was tried, it would need to be outside DC to be seen as legit), but I don't like to see the appearance of payback, and that's what I'm seeing here. It's really easy to jump on the bandwagon when someone is down and you already have a reason that you didn't like them to begin with.
To talk about the rule of law, you need to worry about even the appearance of impropriety. This is loaded with it.
Come on. She was in a position to fully know the facts of her own behavior, and she understood the law as it applied to her. Nobody else in the world was in a better position to know if she broke the law, and she sure didn't have any motive to lie about it.
I most certainly have not. Honestly.
What evidence do you have for this?
Of course, that response wasn't limited to you.
But tell me, do you call yourself a conservative, and did you vote for Bush? If so, I hardly see the significance of the distinction.
Are you saying that a violation of the law should not be pursued if there is an "appearance of payback"? Did you have the same opinion during the Clinton impeachment hearings?
We are, after all, talking about (alleged) violations of law by high ranking officials of the United States Department of Justice (for which I once worked BTW). If someone in DOJ, particularly working at a high level, appears to have violated the law, all appropriate legal remedies should be pursued against that person, including indictment, if applicable. I don't care what their political affiliation is/was, and I don't care about the "perception of payback." Any perception by the legal community (and others that pay attention to these things) that career DOJ positions have become politicized will have far worse consequences for the well being of this country than the "perception of payback." This country is going to pay a significant price for the actions of those who politicized the DOJ. The most effective way to ensure that this kind of thing does not happen again is to conduct a thorough investigation and prosecute those persons who, per the available (admissible) evidence, likely committed a crime.
How many people would you give a "get out of jail free" card to if there is an "appearance of payback"?
Republicans and Democrats are both prone to corruption. But there is something to the idea that Republicans see government as useless, and when they win elections they prove it. Of course that's hyperbole, as is the idea that Democrats see government as the answer to life's problems. But between the extremes there's a kernel of truth. All else equal, a Republican is more likely than a Democrat to think civil service is dispensable enough to staff according to ideology rather than qualifications.
When things go wrong, the people cannot replace the career bureaucrats--they can only blame the president, who is supposed to be accountable but cannot be held responsible if he cannot remove obstructionists from critical jobs. It certainly bugs me that presidents are not held responsible for the kinds of prosecutions carried out during their terms, fobbing it off on the career staff and even bragging how the Attorney General never even tells them about specific cases when something controversial occurs. Plausible deniability is OK for covert operations overseas but should not be a tenet for domestic law enforcement.
Requiring DOJ attorneys to not be criminals is a pretty low bar.
I don't think we're reading the same thread. There are an awful lot of "it's just politics," and unsubstantiated "Democrats are just as bad so it's no big deal," comments. And then there's Bob from Ohio who thinks as long as no criminal laws were violated (is that true?) it doesn't matter.
Someone thinks, for no stated reason, the report is "payback," so the facts are irrelevant. Yes, there's a lot of ass-covering "I don't approve" qualifiers, but they are immediately followed by some sort of rationalization.
As for whether the same will happen under McCain, I think the sensible asuumption is that it will. After all, the same gang will be running things.
IOKIYAR. The GOP used to be the law and order party. Now, not so much.
public:
Bush did something similar in the Plame case. First he said he would fire anyone involved. Then, when it started to become clear that people like Scooter and Rove were involved, he moved the goalposts and said he would fire anyone who committed a crime.
srp:
Then work to change it. But until it's changed, it's supposed to be followed and enforced. It's amazing that this even needs to be said.
Suppose some hypothetical DoJ was systematically refusing to hire blacks because of their race, women because of their gender, or Christians or Jews because of their religion? Off the top of my head, I think that would violate the Constitution, civil service rules, and anti-discrimination statutes, but I don't think it's actually a crime. So, no big deal?
For instance, the second update was about the horrible scandal when someone did not get a longer posting at "Project Safe Neighborhoods initiative". b of course, sghe did spend two years there and left after the evil one got fired.
If the Project Safe Neighborhoods initiative was going to make a single neighborhood safe, perhaps it would be different. But does anyone thing the Project Safe Neighborhoods initiative does anything useful? At the local level maybe. In Washington, doubtful.
Is it possible that this woman just liked the bureaucratic status of being posted to the Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General's office. After all, she did not in fact die when she got posted to the OLP Assistant Attorney General's office.
If Goodling got her way, maybe she would have been posted to a mere Associate Deputy Attorney General, not the Principal one. The horror!
For what it's worth, I will not care if President Obama's people do the same thing.
From pp. 48-50
On September 6, 2006, EOUSA notified all USAOs that it was
seeking a detailee to work on counterterrorism issues. The notice stated
that applicants must have counterterrorism prosecution experience, and
that 5 years of criminal prosecution experience was preferred.
On September 19, 2006, an AUSA sent Voris his application for the
counterterrorism detail. EOUSA Director Battle’s calendar shows that
the AUSA was interviewed by video-teleconference on September 29,
2006.
The candidate had been an AUSA since 1987. He was an
experienced terrorism prosecutor and had successfully prosecuted a
high-profile terrorism case for which he received the Attorney General’s
Award for Exceptional Service. He had also litigated several other
terrorism cases and prosecuted major criminal cases. The candidate
also served as chief of the anti-terrorism unit in his USAO, working with
two joint terrorism task forces containing multiple agencies and agents,
and he had communicated frequently with senior Department leadership with responsibility for terrorism issues.
Battle stated that Voris told him that the candidate was head and
shoulders above the other candidates who had applied for the
counterterrorism detail. Battle agreed with that assessment, stating that
the candidate was the best applicant for the detail. John Kelly, the
EOUSA Deputy Director and Chief of Staff, stated that he and Battle
wanted to hire the candidate because he was one of the leading terrorism
prosecutors in the country and a very talented attorney.
The candidate’s wife was a prominent local Democrat elected
official and vice-chairman of a local Democratic Party. She also ran
several Democratic congressional campaigns. The candidate was at
times a registered Independent and at other times a registered Democrat.
Notwithstanding the candidate’s outstanding qualifications and
EOUSA senior management’s desire to hire him, Goodling refused to
approve the detail.
Battle, Kelly, and EOUSA Deputy Director Nowacki all told us that
Goodling refused to allow the candidate to be detailed to EOUSA solely
on the basis of his wife’s political party affiliation. Battle said he was
very upset that Goodling opposed the detail because of political reasons.
Nowacki told us that Goodling informed him that the candidate’s wife
was a Democrat, and Nowacki believed that Goodling refused to allow the
detail because of this fact. Similarly, Kelly told us that Goodling refused
to allow EOUSA to hire the candidate because his wife was active in
Democratic politics.
Battle said that he and Voris went to Goodling several times to
argue that EOUSA should be allowed to hire the candidate, but they were
not successful. Battle told us he did not appeal Goodling’s refusal to
allow the candidate to be detailed to EOUSA because he did not think it
would be successful given that Goodling worked in the OAG.
The candidate was never informed that he did not get the
counterterrorism detail.
Because EOUSA had been unable to fill the counterterrorism detail
after Goodling vetoed this candidate, a current EOUSA detailee was
asked to assume EOUSA’s counterterrorism portfolio. This replacement
detailee had been an AUSA since September 2004, after having served as
an assistant district attorney for 3 years. He had been detailed to
EOUSA in 2006. He had no counterterrorism experience and had less
than the minimum of 5 years of federal criminal prosecution experience
required by the EOUSA job announcement.
Battle, Nowacki, Kelly, and
Voris all said they thought that he was not qualified for the position,
since he had no counterterrorism experience. The replacement
candidate was a registered Republican who Goodling had interviewed
and approved before he was selected for his EOUSA detail.
In sum, we concluded that Goodling prevented EOUSA from
selecting an experienced career AUSA to handle counterterrorism issues
because of his and his wife’s political affiliation. As a result, a much less
experienced, but politically acceptable, attorney was assigned this
important responsibility.
Sure Bob. Just paper pushing. Who cares what DOJ does. As Mahan says, the rationalizations and excuses offered in this thread are incredible.
Most of the laws set forth in the Constitution have no criminal penalties. By your logic, it would be "no big deal" if the government ignored them wholesale.
Incredible...
The constitution is not a suicide pact. If you tie the president's hands, you're helping the terrorists. Why do you hate America?
Neither is there an honest distinction to be made between calls for Goodling to be punished and liberals not even investigated for the same, and the criminalization of politics.
When Mahan et al address those truths which are inconvenient for them, I'll think they might be honest complainants. 'Til then their false tears do not impress me.
Yours, TDP, ml, msl, &pfpp
This is quite unreadable, but I get your point. (Sort of, I think.)
As for affirmative action, I don't support it as a matter of policy. But there's something to be said for publicly and democratically enacting official rules and laws in order to advance a policy, as compared to secretly violating rules and laws in the name of policy.
As far as liberals being investigated, where is the evidence to warrant it?
And believe it or not, under federal law, some forms of politics are in fact criminal.
This isn't affirmative action by any definition. Even if you assumed for argument's sake that conservatives or Republicans or graduates of fourth tier law schools were underrepresented, and increasing their numbers would serve some valid diversity interest, that's not what happened. Democrats and liberals were systematically smoked out and excluded, not merely disadvantaged by even a generous diversity preference for the others. That's invalid by any standard.
Isn't the illegitimacy of inferring hiring bias by workplace demographics a conservative article of faith? What happened to requiring actual evidence of bias?
As I already explained, that's not what happened, but yes there is. Morally anyway. That might not be the law, but in my opinion the law is wrong. There ought to be at least college admission affirmative action for poor African Americans until being born in a poor African American neighborhood doesn't virtually guarantee an inferior education.
There is no distinction to be made in the result of "smoking out and excluding" and a "generous diversity preference". Each is equally legitimate or not.
Not according to the leftists supporting AA, who therefore should approve of Goodling's failure to enforce the law and her efforts to evade it--every bit as much as they should approve of some unfortunately mythical southern sherrif who one day way back when suddenly stopped enforcing Jim Crow.
Do you doubt the 5 to 1 figure given above? On what basis?
I don't know whether you are a fool or you think I am. There is in fact when hiring from candidate pools A or B no difference between excluding some of A and affirmatively hiring from B. The result is to minimize the contribution tot he pool of hires from A and increase that from B. No difference at all. After all, isn't it outcomes that matter?
Nothing can guarantee an inferior education but an inferior student, and many poor African Americans in poor African neighborhoods are excellent students and well educated--the NEA notwithstanding. The difference lies in the home life, in what the parents or parent holds out to the child to be important. That's a cultural thing, and nothing enforced on African Americans by the larger society.
Yours, TDP, ml, msl, &pfpp
Yes. Even that pesky 1st amendment doesn't stop that.
Why do you imagine such laws should be respected?
Democracy is a means, not an end, and it cannot legitimately act contrary to the constitution.
Yours, TDP, ml, msl, &pfpp
That said, if anybody thinks the democrats don't favor fellow democrats when they are hiring, they need to come back and join the rest of us on planet earth.
I've seen several hundred (if not thousands) of resumes during my tenure at DOJ, and the number of applicants who highlight their political connections - republican and democratic - in their resumes and cover letters is sometimes quite startling.
The career staff in the Department is heavily weighted to the democratic side, and will probably always be that way. The only saving grace to that tilt is that I rarely, if ever, see partisan politics impact a decision.
An answer doesn't turn up later in that thread, either.
Some of your stuff seems to be written in a mysterious language that is not English, so I'm guessing this also is a special code.
If your mail works I'll email you.
Yours, TDP, ml, msl, &pfpp
Are you arguing that anything done in the names of politics should be protected under the First Amendment?
Bribery? Perjury and false statements? (See, e.g., Ted Stevens).
There's a huge difference between "I want to hire more of "A" and "I'll hire anyone but "B"." If you don't see that, then we'll just have to disagree.
I'll assume that's your way of saying "yes."
That wasn't the question, but I don't doubt the figure. Nor do I doubt that it's partially the result of similar, though much, much less egregious behavior by Democrats.
If those are my only choices....
First of all, since there will usually also be C's, D's, E's, etc., those two approaches produce different outcomes, which I hope is obvious.
There's also a legal difference. The Supreme Court recognizes valid purposes for considering certain classifications a plus, but not a minus. So outcome, shmoutcome... take it up with the Supremes.
Plus, like I said, there's the moral thing:
I have to assume you haven't spent much time around public high schools in gang-ridden inner city neighborhoods. If you have, tell me you'd be sanguine about the equality of your kid's opportunities if he lived in one of those neighborhoods and went to one of those schools.
That's a false dichotomy. Families, communities, law enforcement, school facilities, financial resources and personnel all matter. Even if every kid in the school was a Cosby kid, you wouldn't want your children going there. Which again makes me wonder how much direct contact you've really had with this.
I forgot about this:
Of course that's true, just like there are students who wash out of Andover and Exeter. What does that prove? I'm just picking arbitrary numbers here, but if someone can get the same result at one of these schools with twice the effort and twice the risk of dying on his way to or home from school, is he getting an equal chance?