The Myth of Bureaucratic Neutrality: Institutionalized Inequity in Local Government Hiring

Abstract

<jats:p> As a field, we often relate merit and neutrality to the technical skills needed to be the “best” candidate for a job, but that was not necessarily what civil service reformers had in mind. The civil service system was meant to replace widespread political patronage, but the myth around the origins of the civil service system masked inequalities built into early testing requirements and institutionalized racial inequities in hiring practices. In this article, we argue the founding myth of bureaucratic neutrality was so powerful that it continues to reverberate in our field. We trace the current reverberations of the myth of neutrality through modern hiring practices and the contemporary legal landscape. By doing this, we present a systematic review of this rationalized myth in public employment, using an institutionalism framework. As the myth of bureaucratic neutrality continues to permeate decision-making, policy creation, and implementation, it will continue to institutionalize inequity within the field. </jats:p>

Resistance or reinforcement? A critical discourse analysis of racism and anti-Blackness in public administration scholarship

“…In public administration, the field's historic focus on neutrality has slipped naturally into a colorblind ethos that obscures the racist underpinnings of the field (see Alexander & Stivers, 2020;Gooden, 2014;Portillo, Bearfield, & Humphrey, 2020; for further discussion). Colorblindness as an aspirational value of public administration is not only unattainable, but it creates, perpetuates, and exacerbates systems of injustice and oppression (Bonilla-Silva, 2006).…”

Preparing Blacks and Latinx for Workforce 2000: Unfulfilled Promises and Lost Opportunities

“…The presumption of a meritocracy has helped to produce school systems, employment settings, mass media outlets, and housing arrangements that are racially segregated or vehicles for white domination of persons of color. Markovits (2019) argues that meritocracy is a myth that promotes eliteness, perpetuates inequalities, and undermines democracy (also see Portillo et al, 2020). Any effort to address this issue has posed a threat to white liberalism.…”

A long road: Patterns and prospects for social equity, diversity, and inclusion in public administration

“…These policies and administrative actions have resulted in treating populations as “deviant,” resulting in the perpetuation and extension of inequities (Gaynor, 2018; Ingram et al, 2007). Despite claims of administrative neutrality, perhaps best regarded as a myth (Portillo et al, 2019), social structures distribute power differentially to people depending on where they sit at the interstices of power structures, in that structures combine to affect people's experiences (Crenshaw, 1991).…”