A receptionist is sought by the federal government’s pension benefits office. Candidates must be able to answer a telephone, greet visitors, sort mail and tend to the copy machine. And one other thing: They must pass a “security background investigation.”
No, the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation isn’t a front for the CIA (at least, I don’t think so). Its policy reflects the recent requirement that almost every employee of the federal government have some form of security clearance.
Certainly, positions with access to sensitive information should be filled by individuals who are known quantities. But why waste taxpayers’ money investigating the backgrounds of receptionists, student interns, mail clerks — people who will never get anywhere near a state secret or anyone who will?
The enough-is-never-enough crowd will argue that there is no harm in being extra careful. But there is harm — to taxpayers. The cost of a background investigation ranges from several hundred dollars to clear a low-level applicant to around $25,000 for top-security clearance. If the candidate doesn’t accept the job, then the money was spent for nothing.
Indeed, the money almost always is wasted because even if questionable behavior is uncovered, it doesn’t necessarily matter. The Americans With Disabilities Act makes it illegal to disqualify candidates on the basis of psychological disorders. That law also protects individuals with such “physical impairments” as alcoholism, unless it can be demonstrated that their drinking impairs their job performance.
Homosexuality used to be a deal-breaker; today, that would be considered unlawful discrimination. Anecdotal evidence suggests that prior illegal drug use isn’t grounds for general exclusion.
If a criminal record is uncovered that’s irrelevant to the job, does that disqualify a candidate? It would be difficult to make the case that a drunk-driving conviction renders someone unqualified to sort mail. Consider, too, that the increased burden on the Office of Personnel Management, which conducts most background investigations, has created such a backlog that individuals may work more than a year before their security check is complete.
Anyone bent on doing mischief would have ample opportunity to do so before being denied clearance — assuming they were eventually flagged as suspect.
Perhaps nothing better illustrates the fatuity of pervasive background investigations than considering who undergoes them and who does not. With a record of illegal drug use, foreign protests against his own country and innumerable accusations of criminality, Bill Clinton almost certainly could not have acquired top-security clearance. Yet for eight years, Americans trusted him with the power to destroy the world.
Governors have the authority to call out the national guard, yet gubernatorial candidatesdon’t undergo background investigations before being entrusted with control of a state’s army. Where is the sense in giving the likes of Mark Foley, Ted Kennedy, and Barney Frank keys to the Capitol, but running background checks on the interns who fetch their coffee?
Politicians would argue, with much validity, that the press investigates their backgrounds. The difference is that people in power have the option not to cooperate. A president may refuse to reveal whether he has used illegal drugs; a White House doorman may not. The Vice President’s medical records are private; the Secret Service peruses his secretary’s.
If background checks were infallible indicators of character, they would be worth it — but they aren’t. Presumably, Robert Schofield was thoroughly vetted before becoming a supervisor at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Yet earlier this month, he pleaded guilty to accepting bribes to produce fraudulent citizenship documents. Surely someone checked Brian Doyle’s background before making him deputy press secretary for the DHS. He was arrested this year for trying to seduce a child on the Internet.
Employees of the Transportation Security Administration are supposedly vetted, but — based on the number of items reported stolen from suitcases — thieves are still getting into their ranks.
The assumption that people who’ve passed background checks should be considered trustworthy and those who haven’t should be considered suspect is demonstrably specious. Millions of people in the private sector keep secrets every day. Journalists go to jail rather than reveal their sources. Doctors don’t gossip about their patients.
Lawyers, psychiatrists and ministers all routinely honor confidences. Subjecting almost every federal employee to the gratuitous invasion of a background check is a symptom of a greater danger: a government that won’t apply reason when conducting threat assessments.
Hiring someone to answer phones for the Department of Interior without first checking fingerprints is no threat to national security. A federal government that acts with determined irrationality is.
Examiner columnist Melanie Scarborough lives in Alexandria.
