[An abbreviated version of this letter, edited to comport
with word limitations, was sent to the Washington Post
on November 15, 2005.]
Dear Editor:
Recent front-page articles published by the Post painted
an erroneous, unfair and wholly one-sided view of the Civil
Rights Division. It is difficult to respond to such prominent
and lengthy articles in the confines of an oped column.
The first, "Civil Rights Focus Shift Roils Staff at Justice" (Nov.
13), conspicuously omitted all of the statistics which show,
in comparison to the prior administration, increased and more
successful enforcement activities by the Civil Rights Division
in the areas of disability rights, voting rights, housing rights,
religious liberties, and the rights of institutionalized persons.
Worse yet, it reported fiction as fact.
First, the Civil Rights
Division filed 14 amicus briefs in FY 2005, not 3 as reported
in the article, and has prevailed in 90% of our amicus filings,
which compares quite favorably with that of the previous administration
where the success rate was 60%.
Second, even with a number
of attorneys accepting a retirement package offered by
the Office of Personnel Management in FY 2005 to multiple
Justice Department components (and not just to the Civil
Rights Division), attorneys have left the Civil Rights
Division in roughly the same numbers as during a comparable
period of the previous administration (12.65% vs. 11.8%).
This slight difference of less than one percent hardly
suggests an unusual degree of unhappiness, much less that
the "staff" is "roil[ed]."
Third, the article incorrectly suggests
that Civil Rights Division attorneys were singled out for
immigration appeals, thereby preventing them from working
on civil rights cases. This is an irresponsible claim.
The fact is that immigration cases within Office of Immigration
Litigation have increased 500% since 2001, and every
component of the Department of Justice and every United
States Attorney’s Office have been assigned
immigration cases to share this burden pursuant to a directive
issued by the Deputy Attorney General. I am proud that our
Civil Rights attorneys continue to handle effectively
their significant civil rights responsibilities while
accepting this new, but temporary, burden to assist another
litigation component.
Fourth, the article
claims that this Administration has not brought any Section
2 claims on behalf of African-Americans under the Voting
Rights Act; in fact, we have - in addition to the dozens
of other cases we have filed across the Division to protect
the rights of African Americans.
Fifth, the article has
Mr. Eggen quoting two former Division attorneys. But
Richard Ugelow left the Civil Rights Division in 2002,
not 2004 as reported, and is hardly current in his knowledge
of the Division. And while Mr. Eggen properly notes the
backgrounds of those who served in the Division under Presidents
Reagan and Bush, he chose not to disclose that William
Yeomans, who is quoted prominently, was the second highest
ranking official in the Civil Rights Division under President
Clinton, and indeed, the Acting Assistant Attorney General
until President Bush's appointees arrived.
Sixth, the article
criticizes our successful record in vigorously prosecuting
human trafficking offenses at more than three times the
rate of the prior administration - such as cases that
involve the enslavement of minority teenage girls forced
into prostitution - suggesting that such cases retreat
from those values traditionally protected by the Civil
Rights Division. Unlike the Post, we view these cases as
important and directly related to the mission of this Division.
Wan J. Kim
Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division
