Out Of The Loop

Al Kamen writes writes an entertaining, witty, informative inside-the-beltway news/gossip column in the Washington Post, “Inside the Loop.” (Disclaimer: I’ve met Al a couple of times, and played tennis with him once or twice. He’s a bright, charming fellow.)

Typically “Inside the Loop” has little zingers like the one that appeared yesterday, pointing out that last year,

for Public Service Recognition Week, the Office of Personnel Management handed out coffee mugs with the OPM seal and the mantra “Working for America” emblazoned on it. But the mugs were made in China.

Sometimes, however, Kamen has longer, more substantive items. Also yesterday, for example, he recounted that Housing and Urban Development Secretary Alphonso Jackson had rejected an applicant for a HUD contract because the applicant said he didn’t like President Bush. As Jackson told the story at a recent meeting in Dallas, where he used to head the housing authority:

“He had made every effort to get a contract with HUD for 10 years,” Jackson said of the bidder, according to an account of the speech in the Dallas Business Journal. “He made a heck of a proposal and was on the GSA [General Services Administration] list, so we selected him. He came to see me and thank me for selecting him.

“Then he said something. . . . He said, ‘I have a problem with your president.’ I said, ‘What do you mean?’ He said, ‘I don’t like President Bush. ‘ I thought to myself, ‘Brother, you have a disconnect — the president is elected, I was selected. You wouldn’t be getting the contract unless I was sitting here. If you have a problem with the president, don’t tell the secretary.’ “He didn’t get the contract,” Jackson continued. “Why should I reward someone who doesn’t like the president, so they can use funds to try to campaign against the president? Logic says they don’t get the contract. That’s the way I believe.”

Kamen then concludes:

Aside from violating the Constitution’s prohibitions on government retaliation for speech, we’re told Jackson’s peculiar view may violate federal procurement law, which requires “complete impartiality and . . . preferential treatment for none.”

Al Kamen has a sharp sense of humor, but I fear that in the above passage he wasn’t aware that he was being funny. As a close observer of Washington ways, for example, he couldn’t possibly believe that federal contracts are awarded with “complete impartiality and … preferential treatment for none.”

If so, someone should introduce him to the Small Business Administration’s program for “socially and economically disadvantaged individuals.” And no, Al, “socially disadvantaged” does not refer to individuals with bad manners or who have trouble getting dates. Let us see, in detail, what it does mean:

Sec. 124.103 Who is socially disadvantaged?

(a) General. Socially disadvantaged individuals are those who have been subjected to racial or ethnic prejudice or cultural bias within American society because of their identities as members of groups and without regard to their individual qualities. The social disadvantage must stem from circumstances beyond their control.

(b) Members of designated groups. (1) There is a rebuttable presumption that the following individuals are socially disadvantaged: Black Americans; Hispanic Americans; Native Americans (American Indians, Eskimos, Aleuts, or Native Hawaiians); Asian Pacific Americans (persons with origins from Burma, Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, Singapore, Brunei, Japan, China (including Hong Kong), Taiwan, Laos, Cambodia (Kampuchea), Vietnam, Korea, The Philippines, U.S. Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands (Republic of Palau), Republic of the Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, Samoa, Macao, Fiji, Tonga, Kiribati, Tuvalu, or Nauru); Subcontinent Asian Americans (persons with origins from India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Bhutan, the Maldives Islands or Nepal); and members of other groups designated from time to time by SBA according to procedures set forth at paragraph (d) of this section. Being born in a country does not, by itself, suffice to make the birth country an individual’s country of origin for purposes of being included within a designated group.

(2) An individual must demonstrate that he or she has held himself or herself out, and is currently identified by others, as a member of a designated group if SBA requires it.

(3) The presumption of social disadvantage may be overcome with credible evidence to the contrary. Individuals possessing or knowing of such evidence should submit the information in writing to the Associate Administrator for 8(a) BD (AA/8(a)BD) for consideration.

(c) Individuals not members of designated groups. (1) An individual who is not a member of one of the groups presumed to be socially disadvantaged in paragraph (b)(1) of this section must establish individual social disadvantage by a preponderance of the evidence.

(2) Evidence of individual social disadvantage must include the following elements:

(i) At least one objective distinguishing feature that has contributed to social disadvantage, such as race, ethnic origin, gender, physical handicap, long-term residence in an environment isolated from the mainstream of American society, or other similar causes not common to individuals who are not socially disadvantaged;

(ii) Personal experiences of substantial and chronic social disadvantage in American society, not in other countries; and

(iii) Negative impact on entry into or advancement in the business world because of the disadvantage. SBA will consider any relevant evidence in assessing this element. In every case, however, SBA will consider education, employment and business history, where applicable, to see if the totality

SBA, of course, is only one agency. Contracting and hiring that gives preferences based on race and ethnicity is not rare in government, as elsewhere.

In the case at hand, I don’t think applicants should be rejected for government contracts because they announce they don’t like the president, but this isn’t the sort of case I’ll lose any sleep over. I would be quite surprised if every administration didn’t reward its friends more readily than its critics, and this particular applicant’s snarling at the hand that was about to feed it reveals a certain lack of judgment.