Student Activists Denied Jobs in Government, Media

The consequences of political activism may be more serious than many students engaged in anti-war protests had expected. As reaction to campus demonstrations grows in this country, employment opportunities for radicals and the not-so-radical have begun to narrow-especially in the area of summer jobs.

Institutions as diverse as the federal government, the New York Times and Washington Post, and New England prep schools are now asking direct and possibly illegal questions about a job applicant's political history.

Prep Schools

At least two prominent New England preparatory schools have already modified their teacher recommendation forms to include such questions as "Has this applicant ever participated in a political demonstration? Explain." Other large industrial firms save the question until the personal interview when they can gauge the student's immediate response.

A spokesman for the federal Civil Service Commission (CSC) said Monday that the government is also stepping up its efforts to screen out applicants "who have engaged in violent campus demonstrations."

Request Grant

The CSC has requested an additional $200,000 in its 1970-71 budget to conduct special investigations into the background of student demonstrators applying for Civil Service positions. The investigations will affect all applicants-from college graduates seeking top Federal posts to undergraduates taking summer Post Office jobs.

Although the Civil Service has always done such screening for persons with arrest and conviction records, Kimball Johnson, the Southern director of the CSC's Bureau of Personnel Investigation, said the number of persons being investigated today has jumped 50 per cent over what it was two years ago.

Drug Users

Johnson said this is due to a higher incidence of drug use among applicants and to the fact that more of today's applicants "have been up to their necks in SDS."

The CSC plans to cross-check names of all applicants against existing FBI files and other investigating agency lists-including state and local police information.

Many such files are accumulated very loosely from demonstration pictures and hear-say testimony. Should the applicant's name turn up, the CSC will investigate further before acting on the case.

NEWS FEATURE

But if the investigators find that the applicant has been "involved in disruptive activities on the campus or in the community-without evidence of his rehabilitation," Johnson said, "there is a good chance he will be rejected."

Judgmental Matter

Johnson clearly noted that the check for radicals will go belong a check into criminal records. "If the evidence points to the man's guilt-even though he was not convicted-we can take action," he said. "It's a judgment matter."

The new screenings have not yet gone into full operation, however. But if Congress approved the extra money, about 40.000 young applicants will be subjected to the CSC screening.

Accompanying the official government crackdown on student dissenters are other incidents of more subtle political discrimination by the Washington Post.

After taking in a fistful of radical interns last year, the Post drew a hard-line on political activists this year in response to Agnew-led attacks on the "liberal" press.

"We're not sure we can afford to be hiring political activists any more," Ben Bagdikian, the Post's national editor reportedly told one intern applicant.

Both the Post and the Times asked prospective summer interns a long series of highly political questions having little relation to reportorial skill in interviews this spring "Examples include: What was the last political demonstration you participated in? Would you serve in the Army? How do you plan to get out?

While one of the Post interviewers explained the questions were designed to weed out weak-willed reporters, in at least one case a radical answer led to the Post to turn an applicant down.

Post editors agonized over and finally rejected one student they considered eminently qualified after he answered that he would go to jail rather than serve in the army. Executive Editor Benjamin C. Bradlee reportedly argued that this level of commitment mighthamper his journalistic objectivity. One editor later admitted that the person would have been hired. had he answered differently.

Seeking an intern for the Washington Bureau of the New York Times. Robert Smith, a Times reporter, was discussing the terms of the summer job cordially with one student, until he discovered that the student did not have the political qualifications demanded for the job.

He had deliberately asked to interview a "Nixon-conservative" for the post. "This post is new and this is what Phelps [Robert Phelps-Smith's superior in the Times Washington Bureau] wants." he said.

After asking the student about his experience. Smith asked him where he stood on the political spectrum and what he thought of the Nixon administration. Not much the student replied.

"There must be some mistake." Smith responded.

"What Phelps wants is cross-pollination," Smith said. "After all, we're all a bunch of liberals down here and this is what the administration has been complaining about all along. Phelps created the post and he is entitled to whatever he wants."