[alabastervlog]

He may issue an EO against them similar to the ones he's successfully used to bring major law firms he doesn't like to heel: ban consideration of former Harvard employees (... maybe also graduates?) for Federal jobs, revoke clearances held by anyone employed by Harvard, and ban them from Federal property. Maybe with some other creative terms thrown in to mess with universities in particular.

[JumpCrisscross]

> ban consideration of former Harvard employees (... maybe also graduates?) for Federal jobs

Oh, those federal jobs he’s been DOGEing for the past weeks in an attempt to demotivate folks out of them?

This administration’s incoherence comes back to bite it in the ass again.

[SoftTalker]

That is always a risk of working for the government. Your job exists more or less at the whims of the currently governing administration.

[unclebucknasty]

>Your job exists more or less at the whims of the currently governing administration.

Perhaps in theory, but not in practice as a historical norm. And, certainly not for "standard" non-appointed, bureaucratic roles.

It's important that we don't normalize what we're seeing here, in terms of quality or degree.

[const_cast]

No, this is not the case. This is a recent and never before seen phenomenon. Please, do not try to downplay it. And, if you do, do not do it dishonestly.

[ajross]

That has essentially never been a risk for a non-appointed government employee in the United States of America, at least for the past century or so. We Don't Politicize the Bureaucracy. And that was at least in part the secret sauce to our generational success, that we could immunize the workings of the government from the pique and emotion of its leadership.

Or we didn't. Now we do. Kinda sucks.

[ethbr1]

Since ~1885 and the Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pendleton_Civil_Service_Refo...

Submitted some historical breadcrumbs here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43686221

[SoftTalker]

Well this was advice my father (an academic and lifelong straight ticket Democrat) gave me decades ago. So it was nothing specific to the current administration.

[kjellsbells]

The difference is that the people affected by whim were, by design, only supposed to be the political appointees, not the civil service rank and file. Those jobs existed for as long as Congress decided that they produced useful results for the American people. Positions could be eliminated by virtue of Congress deciding that a shift in policy was needed, eg fewer Kremlinologists after 1989, but that is not a whim, that is a result of debate.

The current administration is making all positions political, and in doing so, performing an end run around the legislative branch.