tag:theconversation.com,2011:/africa/topics/kellyanne-conway-35318/articlesKellyanne Conway – The Conversation2021-11-12T13:34:54Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1716532021-11-12T13:34:54Z2021-11-12T13:34:54ZThe Hatch Act, the law Trump deputies are said to have broken, requires government employees to work for the public interest, not partisan campaigns<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/431379/original/file-20211110-19-1msqcmz.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C7%2C5061%2C3366&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">At least 13 former Trump administration officials, including Jared Kushner and Kayleigh McEnany, pictured here, violated the Hatch Act, according to a new federal investigation released Nov. 9, 2021.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://newsroom.ap.org/detail/TrumpHatchAct/ccefacd6bbb840efb47c1dc4972f82c3/photo?Query=Trump%20Kushner&mediaType=photo&sortBy=arrivaldatetime:desc&dateRange=Anytime&totalCount=1895&currentItemNo=0">AP Photo/Alex Brandon</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Thirteen top officials of the <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/09/us/politics/trump-officials-illegal-campaigning.html">Trump administration violated the federal law known as the Hatch Act</a>, which prohibits political campaigning while employed by the federal government. That’s the <a href="https://osc.gov/Documents/Hatch%20Act/Reports/Investigation%20of%20Political%20Activities%20by%20Senior%20Trump%20Administration%20Officials%20During%20the%202020%20Presidential%20Election.pdf">conclusion of a federal government report</a> issued by the Special Counsel, Henry Kerner. </p>
<p>The officials, including then-acting Secretary of Homeland Security Chad Wolf and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, “chose to use their official authority not for the legitimate functions of the government, but to promote the reelection of President Trump in violation of the law.” </p>
<p>The Trump administration members were not the first federal employees to <a href="https://www.governmentattic.org/41docs/OSChathActWarningLrtrs_2018-2020.pdf">have crossed the line</a> into prohibited political advocacy. Over the past few decades, government employees have been documented violating the Hatch Act in their offices, at meetings and in memos. And in a world awash in social media, it has become much easier for people to share their views about politics digitally.</p>
<p>But government employees work for the people of the United States. Paid with the tax dollars of Democrats and Republicans, they are supposed to work in the public interest, not use the power of the federal government to pursue partisan political causes. </p>
<h2>Public dollars, public mission</h2>
<p>The ideal of public employees as politically neutral is, at its core, driven by accountability. </p>
<p>For many government employees, the appearance of political impartiality is an overriding principle that governs their professional lives. Upholding this principle can even cause them to sacrifice their own electoral influence outside of the office.</p>
<p>I am a scholar of public policy and administration, and my research indicates that <a href="https://thebluereview.org/hidden-cost-primary-systems/">many would rather not vote in a party’s primary election</a>, where they would be required to publicly state what party they belong to.</p>
<p>Where is the line between professional standards and political speech?</p>
<p>Public servants, the argument goes, should be neutral and concerned only with implementing public policy that is decided by elected officials. This <a href="https://www.iapss.org/wp/2014/06/30/the-dichotomy-of-politics-and-public-administration-lessons-from-the-perennial-debate/">principle</a> has driven the field of public administration for more than 100 years. </p>
<p>Passed in 1939, the Hatch Act <a href="https://osc.gov/Services/Pages/HatchAct.aspx">prohibits</a> federal employees from running for partisan office, encouraging subordinates to engage in political activity, soliciting political contributions or engaging in political activity while on duty. It does not prohibit affiliating with a political party, discussing politics or attending fundraisers.</p>
<p>The Hatch Act generally only applies to federal employees. It does not apply to the president, vice president or Cabinet appointments. It can also cover state and local government employees, if their work is at least partially funded by federal dollars. <a href="http://www.ncsl.org/research/ethics/50statetablestaffandpoliticalactivitystatutes.aspx">Several states, such as Minnesota, North Carolina and Ohio, have additional laws</a> that can further restrict the political activity of public employees, even if their positions aren’t federally funded.</p>
<p>From 2010 through 2016, <a href="https://osc.gov/PublicFiles">the Office of the Special Counsel, or OSC, which investigates Hatch Act violations,</a> received an average of 315 Hatch Act complaints per year, which resulted in an average of 102 warning letters per year. An average of nine employees per year have resigned from their positions in response.</p>
<p>Some recent examples of Hatch Act violations include <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/24/AR2007052401130.html">asking others</a> to “help our candidates” and <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/postal-service-broke-law-in-pushing-time-off-for-workers-to-campaign-for-clinton-investigation-finds/2017/07/19/3292741c-6ca0-11e7-b9e2-2056e768a7e5_story.html">pressuring supervisors</a> to allow employees time off in order to campaign for their union’s preferred candidate. Others <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/25/us/politics/25ethics.html">coordinated partisan elections</a> using taxpayer-funded resources. Even <a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2017/10/03/un-ambassador-nikki-haley-hit-hatch-act-reprimand/728611001/">retweeting a post from the president of the United States</a> on social media constituted a violation. </p>
<h2>From patronage to neutrality, via assassination</h2>
<p>During the early years of the United States, the federal government operated under a system known as “patronage.” </p>
<p>Under that system, a newly elected president could replace federal employees with a person of their choosing. Often, they chose only from among their supporters, campaign workers and friends. This was especially true if the presidency changed political parties. </p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/211576/original/file-20180322-54903-1bi9wgl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/211576/original/file-20180322-54903-1bi9wgl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=852&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/211576/original/file-20180322-54903-1bi9wgl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=852&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/211576/original/file-20180322-54903-1bi9wgl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=852&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/211576/original/file-20180322-54903-1bi9wgl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1071&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/211576/original/file-20180322-54903-1bi9wgl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1071&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/211576/original/file-20180322-54903-1bi9wgl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1071&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Woodrow Wilson wrote an important essay on government employee neutrality before he became president.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Library of Congress</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The public bureaucracy was constantly changing, and few officials were around long enough to develop institutional memory. In addition, patronage led to the appointment of people who were not qualified for the positions they got, leaving the government inefficient and the public dissatisfied. </p>
<p>President <a href="http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/the-study-of-administration/">Woodrow Wilson,</a> prior to his presidency, and <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=NVoPAAAAYAAJ&pg=PR3#v=onepage&q&f=false">Frank Goodnow</a>, writing separately at the end of the 19th century, first articulated the theory that there should be a wall between elected officials who set public policy and the professional staff charged with implementing that policy. </p>
<p>A professional class of government employees was not the tradition of the United States at that time, and the public had to be convinced of its virtue. Wilson’s <a href="http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/the-study-of-administration/">essay</a> tried to help the wider population understand why civil service reforms were necessary.</p>
<p>There was another event that also helped move government employment from patronage to professionalism. In 1881, a man who felt he had been unfairly passed over for a patronage job shot and killed <a href="https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/garfield-assassination-altered-american-history-woefully-forgotten-today-180968319/">President James Garfield</a>. This assassination helped highlight the problems of the patronage system and led to the passage of the <a href="https://www.politico.com/story/2018/01/16/pendleton-act-inaugurates-us-civil-service-system-jan-16-1883-340488">Pendleton Act in 1883</a>. That legislation instituted a merit-based civil service system that remains largely in place today.</p>
<p>Under the system instituted in 1883, only the top levels of federal agencies can be replaced by patronage appointments – friends, supporters and allies of the new administration. The remaining levels of rank-and-file staff are expected to be nonpartisan professionals. In many respects, the Hatch Act can be seen as an outgrowth of this ideal.</p>
<p>[<em>Over 115,000 readers rely on The Conversation’s newsletter to understand the world.</em> <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/newsletters/the-daily-newsletter-3?utm_source=TCUS&utm_medium=inline-link&utm_campaign=newsletter-text&utm_content=100Ksignup">Sign up today</a>.]</p>
<h2>A ‘fanciful’ distinction</h2>
<p>The boundary between politics and civil service employees is not necessarily easy to see or maintain. Scholars have wrestled with whether government employees, charged with implementing vague public policy, can really be separated entirely from political concerns. </p>
<p>In fact, some scholars have rejected the separation as fanciful. In an important debate between preeminent public administration scholar <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/40861434?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents">Dwight Waldo and Nobel Prize-winning economist Herbert Simon</a>, Waldo argued that when some decision-making is left to administrators, an administrator’s own politics will influence those decisions. In short, public employees are not actually neutral. Simon, on the other hand, argued that efficient government required that administrative decisions should emphasize objective facts and not be influenced by a public employee’s personal values.</p>
<p>While most public administration scholars have moved beyond debate about the dichotomy itself, public employees still have to grapple with their proper role. And they do so as they work for elected policymakers, who themselves <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1081/PAD-100000713">still think that they are the only ones who should drive what all levels of government do</a>.</p>
<h2>Neutrality not getting easier</h2>
<p>For over a century, public employees have generally subscribed to an ethos that theirs is a professional role separated from the daily political grind. In the modern era, it takes far more discipline to maintain that separation. And it does not appear to be getting any easier.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/211577/original/file-20180322-54893-1bpgl0t.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/211577/original/file-20180322-54893-1bpgl0t.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=516&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/211577/original/file-20180322-54893-1bpgl0t.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=516&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/211577/original/file-20180322-54893-1bpgl0t.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=516&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/211577/original/file-20180322-54893-1bpgl0t.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=648&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/211577/original/file-20180322-54893-1bpgl0t.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=648&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/211577/original/file-20180322-54893-1bpgl0t.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=648&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">CNBC reporter Christina Wilkie’s tweet about Kellyanne Conway’s attack on a Democratic political candidate; Conway was found to have violated the Hatch Act.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Twitter</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In 2015, the <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/federal-eye/wp/2015/11/13/no-tweeting-what-you-actually-think-about-clinton-or-carson-if-youre-on-the-clock-new-limits-on-feds/">Hatch Act was clarified</a> to prohibit federal employees from, among other things, liking or retweeting a political candidate while on the job, even during break time. Some in sensitive positions, like law enforcement or intelligence, are even prohibited from doing so during their off-hours.</p>
<p>Despite that attempt at clarity, in today’s hyperpartisan climate, social media and 24-hour connectivity have helped blur the line between a public employee acting in their official capacity and their private life. </p>
<p>The Trump administration officials’ violations help remind us that the line between political activity and professional neutrality still exists for federal employees. And in this increasingly connected world, the opportunities to fall short are plentiful.</p>
<p><em>This is an updated version of <a href="https://theconversation.com/federal-employees-work-for-both-democrats-and-republicans-even-kellyanne-conway-93165">an article</a> originally published on March 23, 2018.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/171653/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Matthew May does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>More than a dozen Trump administration officials are said to have violated a federal law that bars federal employees from political campaigning. They weren’t the first to have run afoul of the law.Matthew May, Senior Research Associate, Boise State UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1216662019-08-16T12:54:04Z2019-08-16T12:54:04ZToo many people think satirical news is real<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/289452/original/file-20190826-8841-1dkc0n4.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">In a news cycle full of clownish characters and outrageous rhetoric, it's no wonder satire isn't fully registering with a lot of readers.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.macleans.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Screen-Shot-2017-02-01-at-4.55.57-PM.png">The Onion</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>In July, the website Snopes published a piece <a href="https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/georgia-lawmaker-go-back-claim/">fact-checking</a> a story posted on The Babylon Bee, a popular satirical news site with a conservative bent.</p>
<p>Conservative columnist David French <a href="https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/07/hands-off-the-babylon-bee/">criticized Snopes</a> for debunking what was, in his view, “obvious satire. Obvious.” A few days later, Fox News <a href="https://twitter.com/TheBabylonBee/status/1157352307408941056">ran a segment</a> featuring The Bee’s incredulous CEO. </p>
<p>But does everyone recognize satire as readily as French seems to? </p>
<p>Our team of communication researchers has spent years studying <a href="http://rkellygarrett.com/">misinformation</a>, <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=wmVeRQUAAAAJ&hl=en">satire</a> and <a href="http://robertmbond.net/">social media</a>. Over the last several months, we’ve surveyed Americans’ beliefs about dozens of high-profile political issues. We identified news stories – both true and false – that were being shared widely on social media.</p>
<p>We discovered that many of the false stories weren’t the kind that were trying to intentionally deceive their readers; they actually came from satirical sites, and many people seemed to believe them.</p>
<h2>Fool me once</h2>
<p>People have long mistaken satire for real news. </p>
<p>On his popular satirical news show “The Colbert Report,” comedian Stephen Colbert assumed the character of a conservative cable news pundit. However, researchers found that <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/1940161208330904">conservatives regularly misinterpreted Colbert’s performance</a> to be a sincere expression of his political beliefs. </p>
<p><a href="https://www.theonion.com/">The Onion</a>, a popular satirical news website, is misunderstood so often that there’s a large online community <a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/AteTheOnion/">dedicated to ridiculing those who have been fooled</a>. </p>
<p>But now more than ever, Americans are worried about their ability <a href="https://www.journalism.org/2016/12/15/many-americans-believe-fake-news-is-sowing-confusion/">to distinguish between what’s true and what isn’t</a> and think made-up news <a href="https://www.journalism.org/2019/06/05/many-americans-say-made-up-news-is-a-critical-problem-that-needs-to-be-fixed/">is a significant problem facing the country</a>.</p>
<p>Sometimes satire is easy to spot, like when The Babylon Bee reported that President Donald Trump had appointed <a href="https://babylonbee.com/news/joe-biden-appointed-head-of-tsa">Joe Biden to head up the Transportation Security Administration</a> based on “Biden’s skill getting inappropriately close to people and making unwanted physical advances.” But other headlines are more difficult to assess.</p>
<p>For example, the claim that <a href="https://politics.theonion.com/john-bolton-an-attack-on-two-saudi-oil-tankers-is-an-1834791494">John Bolton described an attack on two Saudi oil tankers</a> as “an attack on all Americans” might sound plausible until you’re told that the story appeared in The Onion. </p>
<p>The truth is, understanding online political satire isn’t easy. Many satirical websites mimic the tone and appearance of news sites. You have to be familiar with the political issue being satirized. You have to understand what normal political rhetoric looks like, and you have to recognize exaggeration. Otherwise, it’s pretty easy to mistake a satirical message for a literal one. </p>
<h2>Do you know it when you see it?</h2>
<p><a href="http://rkellygarrett.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/ConversationSatireSI.pdf">Our study on misinformation and social media</a> lasted six months. Every two weeks, we identified 10 of the most shared fake political stories on social media, which included satirical stories. Others were fake news reports meant to deliberately mislead readers.</p>
<p>We then asked a representative group of over 800 Americans to tell us if they believed claims based on those trending stories. By the end of the study, we had measured respondents’ beliefs about 120 widely shared falsehoods.</p>
<p>Satirical articles like those found on The Babylon Bee frequently showed up in our survey. In fact, stories published by The Bee were among the most shared factually inaccurate content in almost every survey we conducted. On one survey, The Babylon Bee had articles relating to five different falsehoods.</p>
<p>For each claim, we asked people to tell us whether it was true or false and how confident they were in their belief. Then we computed the proportion of Democrats and of Republicans who described these statements as “definitely true.” </p>
<p>If we zero in on The Babylon Bee, a few patterns stand out. </p>
<p><iframe id="X7KXb" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/X7KXb/1/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p>Members of both parties failed to recognize that The Babylon Bee is satire, but Republicans were considerably more likely to do so. Of the 23 falsehoods that came from The Bee, eight were confidently believed by at least 15% of Republican respondents. One of the most widely believed falsehoods was based on <a href="https://babylonbee.com/news/ilhan-omar-if-israel-is-so-innocent-then-why-are-they-all-jews">a series of made-up quotes attributed to Rep. Ilhan Omar</a>. A satirical article that suggested that Sen. Bernie Sanders <a href="https://babylonbee.com/news/bernie-sanders-vows-to-round-up-remaining-isis-members-allow-them-to-vote">had criticized the billionaire who paid off Morehouse College graduates’ student debt</a> was another falsehood that Republicans fell for.</p>
<p>Our surveys also featured nine falsehoods that emerged from The Onion. Here, Democrats were more often fooled, though they weren’t quite as credulous. Nonetheless, almost 1 in 8 Democrats was certain that <a href="https://politics.theonion.com/kellyanne-conway-decides-to-lay-low-until-rule-of-law-d-1835497591">White House counselor Kellyanne Conway had questioned the value of the rule of law</a>.</p>
<p><iframe id="HgJVz" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/HgJVz/1/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p>It’s no surprise that, depending on the headline, satire might be more likely to deceive members of one political party over another. Individuals’ political worldviews <a href="https://research-information.bristol.ac.uk/files/152516154/Pages_from_JARMAC_2017_59_Revision_1_V1.pdf">consistently color their perceptions of facts</a>. Still, Americans’ inability to agree on what is true and what is false <a href="https://scholars.org/contribution/fake-news-symptom-not-cause-americans-growing-reluctance-accept-shared-facts">is a problem for democracy</a>. </p>
<h2>Flagging satire</h2>
<p>The larger question, though, is what we should do about this problem. </p>
<p>In other <a href="https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jcmc/zmz012">recent work</a>, we compared the effectiveness of different ways of flagging inaccurate social media content. </p>
<p>We tested a couple of different methods. One involved including a warning that fact-checkers had determined the inaccuracy of a post. Another had a message indicating that the content was from a satirical site. </p>
<p>We found that labeling an article as “satire” was uniquely effective. Users were less likely to believe stories labeled as satire, were less likely to share them and saw the source as less credible. They also valued the warning. </p>
<p>Facebook <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/amitchowdhry/2014/08/18/facebook-is-testing-a-satire-tag-since-users-think-the-onion-articles-are-true/#5469fd9e4f76">tested this feature itself</a> a few years ago, and Google News has started to <a href="https://www.google.com/search?q=the+onion&tbm=nws">label some satirical content</a>.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/288215/original/file-20190815-136203-1y2cenp.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/288215/original/file-20190815-136203-1y2cenp.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/288215/original/file-20190815-136203-1y2cenp.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=337&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/288215/original/file-20190815-136203-1y2cenp.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=337&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/288215/original/file-20190815-136203-1y2cenp.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=337&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/288215/original/file-20190815-136203-1y2cenp.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=423&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/288215/original/file-20190815-136203-1y2cenp.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=423&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/288215/original/file-20190815-136203-1y2cenp.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=423&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The New Yorker’s Borowitz Report – a satirical column written by Andy Borowtiz – is labeled ‘satire’ when it appears in Google News searches.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Google News Screenshot</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>This suggests that clearly labeling satirical content as satire can help social media users navigate a complex and sometimes confusing news environment. </p>
<p>Despite French’s criticism of Snopes for fact-checking The Babylon Bee, he ends his essay by noting that “Snopes can serve a useful purpose. And there’s a space for it to remind readers that satire is satire.” </p>
<p>On this point, we couldn’t agree more.</p>
<p><em>Editor’s note: This story has been updated to include <a href="http://rkellygarrett.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/ConversationSatireSI.pdf">a link</a> providing additional details about the study’s methodology.</em></p>
<p>[ <em>You’re smart and curious about the world. So are The Conversation’s authors and editors.</em> <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/newsletters?utm_source=TCUS&utm_medium=inline-link&utm_campaign=newsletter-text&utm_content=youresmart">You can read us daily by subscribing to our newsletter</a>. ]</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/121666/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>R. Kelly Garrett receives funding from the National Science Foundation and Facebook. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Robert Bond receives funding from Facebook. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Shannon Poulsen does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>You might see a headline from The Onion or The Babylon Bee and, for a split second, think it’s true. But many social media users don’t get the joke – and share these articles as if they’re real.R. Kelly Garrett, Professor of Communication, The Ohio State UniversityRobert Bond, Associate Professor of Communication, The Ohio State UniversityShannon Poulsen, PhD Student in Communication, The Ohio State UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/931652018-03-23T10:31:57Z2018-03-23T10:31:57ZFederal employees work for both Democrats and Republicans – even Kellyanne Conway<p>Federal ethics lawyers determined earlier this month that White House adviser <a href="https://www.politico.com/story/2018/03/06/kellyanne-conway-hatch-violation-438760">Kellyanne Conway violated the Hatch Act</a>, which <a href="https://osc.gov/pages/hatchact-affectsme.aspx">prohibits a variety</a> of political activities by federal employees. During two television appearances last year, Conway, a Republican, had encouraged Alabama voters to vote against the Democratic senate candidate in a special election.</p>
<p>Conway made her comments on television. That’s not the only arena where federal employees <a href="https://osc.gov/Resources/OSC%20FY%202016%20Annual%20Report%20-31July2017.pdf">have crossed the line</a> into prohibited political advocacy. They do it in their offices, at meetings and in memos. And in a world awash in social media, it has become much easier for people to share their views about politics digitally.</p>
<p>But government employees work for the people of the United States. Paid with the tax dollars of Democrats and Republicans, they are supposed to work in the public interest, not use the power of the federal government to pursue partisan political causes. </p>
<h2>Public dollars, public mission</h2>
<p>The ideal of public employees as politically neutral is, at its core, driven by accountability. </p>
<p>For many government employees, the appearance of political impartiality is an overriding principle that governs their professional lives. </p>
<p>Upholding this principle can even cause them to sacrifice their own electoral influence outside of the office. I am a scholar of public policy and administration, and my research indicates that <a href="https://thebluereview.org/hidden-cost-primary-systems/">many would rather not vote in a party’s primary election</a> where they would be required to publicly state what party they belong to.</p>
<p>Where is the line between professional standards and political speech?</p>
<p>Public servants, the argument goes, should be neutral and concerned only with implementing public policy that is decided by elected officials. This <a href="https://www.iapss.org/wp/2014/06/30/the-dichotomy-of-politics-and-public-administration-lessons-from-the-perennial-debate/">principle</a> has driven the field of public administration for more than 100 years. </p>
<p>Passed in 1939, the Hatch Act <a href="https://osc.gov/Resources/HA%20Poster%20Lesser%20Restricted%202016.pdf">prohibits</a> federal employees from running for partisan office, encouraging subordinates to engage in political activity, soliciting political contributions or engaging in political activity while on duty. It does not prohibit affiliating with a political party, discussing politics or attending fundraisers.</p>
<p>The Hatch Act generally only applies to federal employees. It does not apply to the president, vice president or Cabinet appointments. It can also cover state and local government employees, if their work is at least partially funded by federal dollars. <a href="http://www.ncsl.org/research/ethics/50statetablestaffandpoliticalactivitystatutes.aspx">Several states, such as Minnesota, North Carolina and Ohio, have additional laws</a> that can further restrict the political activity of public employees, even if their positions aren’t federally funded.</p>
<p>From 2010 through 2016, <a href="https://osc.gov/Resources/OSC%20FY%202016%20Annual%20Report%20-31July2017.pdf">the Office of the Special Counsel, or OSC, which investigates Hatch Act violations,</a> received an average of 315 Hatch Act complaints per year, which resulted in an average of 102 warning letters per year. An average of nine employees per year have resigned from their positions in response.</p>
<p>Some recent examples of Hatch Act violations include <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/24/AR2007052401130.html">asking others</a> to “help our candidates” and <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/postal-service-broke-law-in-pushing-time-off-for-workers-to-campaign-for-clinton-investigation-finds/2017/07/19/3292741c-6ca0-11e7-b9e2-2056e768a7e5_story.html">pressuring supervisors</a> to allow employees time off in order to campaign for their union’s preferred candidate. Others <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/25/us/politics/25ethics.html">coordinated partisan elections</a> using taxpayer-funded resources. Even <a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2017/10/03/un-ambassador-nikki-haley-hit-hatch-act-reprimand/728611001/">retweeting a post from the president of the United States</a> on social media constituted a violation. </p>
<h2>From patronage to neutrality, via assassination</h2>
<p>During the early years of the United States, the federal government operated under a system known as “patronage.” </p>
<p>Under that system, a newly elected president could replace federal employees with a person of their choosing. Often, they chose only from among their supporters, campaign workers and friends. This was especially true if the presidency changed political parties. </p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/211576/original/file-20180322-54903-1bi9wgl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/211576/original/file-20180322-54903-1bi9wgl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=852&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/211576/original/file-20180322-54903-1bi9wgl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=852&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/211576/original/file-20180322-54903-1bi9wgl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=852&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/211576/original/file-20180322-54903-1bi9wgl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1071&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/211576/original/file-20180322-54903-1bi9wgl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1071&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/211576/original/file-20180322-54903-1bi9wgl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1071&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Woodrow Wilson wrote an important essay on government employee neutrality before he became president.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Library of Congress</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The public bureaucracy was constantly changing, and few officials were around long enough to develop institutional memory. In addition, patronage led to the appointment of people who were not qualified for the positions they got, leaving government inefficient and the public dissatisfied. </p>
<p>President <a href="http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/the-study-of-administration/">Woodrow Wilson,</a> prior to his presidency, and <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=NVoPAAAAYAAJ&pg=PR3#v=onepage&q&f=false">Frank Goodnow</a>, writing separately at the end of the 19th century, first articulated the theory that there should be a wall between elected officials who set public policy and the professional staff charged with implementing that policy. </p>
<p>A professional class of government employees was not the tradition of the United States at that time and the public had to be convinced of its virtue. Wilson’s <a href="http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/the-study-of-administration/">essay</a> tried to help the wider population understand why civil service reforms were necessary.</p>
<p>There was another event that also helped move government employment from patronage to professionalism. In 1881, a man who felt he had been unfairly passed over for a patronage job shot and killed <a href="https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/garfield-assassination-altered-american-history-woefully-forgotten-today-180968319/">President James Garfield</a>. This assassination helped highlight the problems of the patronage system and led to the passage of the <a href="https://www.politico.com/story/2018/01/16/pendleton-act-inaugurates-us-civil-service-system-jan-16-1883-340488">Pendleton Act in 1883</a>. That legislation instituted a merit-based civil service system that remains largely in place today.</p>
<p>Under the system instituted in 1883, only the top levels of federal agencies can be replaced by patronage appointments – friends, supporters and allies of the new administration. The remaining levels of rank-and-file staff are expected to be nonpartisan professionals. In many respects, the Hatch Act can be seen as an outgrowth of this ideal.</p>
<h2>A ‘fanciful’ distinction</h2>
<p>The boundary between politics and civil service employees is not necessarily easy to see or maintain. Scholars have wrestled with whether government employees, charged with implementing vague public policy, can really be separated entirely from political concerns. </p>
<p>In fact, some scholars have rejected the separation as fanciful. In an important debate between preeminent public administration scholar <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/40861434?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents">Dwight Waldo and Nobel Prize-winning economist Herbert Simon</a>, Waldo argued that when some decision-making is left to administrators, the administrator’s own politics will influence those decisions. In short, public employees are not actually neutral. Simon, on the other hand, argued that efficient government required that administrative decisions should emphasize objective facts and not be influenced by the public employee’s personal values.</p>
<p>While most public administration scholars have moved beyond debate about the dichotomy itself, public employees still have to grapple with their proper role. And they do so as they work for elected policymakers, who themselves <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1081/PAD-100000713">still think that they are the only ones who should drive what all levels of government do</a>.</p>
<h2>Neutrality not getting easier</h2>
<p>For over a century, public employees have generally subscribed to an ethos that theirs is a professional role separated from the daily political grind. In the modern era, it takes far more discipline to maintain that separation. And it does not appear to be getting any easier.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/211577/original/file-20180322-54893-1bpgl0t.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/211577/original/file-20180322-54893-1bpgl0t.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=516&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/211577/original/file-20180322-54893-1bpgl0t.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=516&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/211577/original/file-20180322-54893-1bpgl0t.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=516&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/211577/original/file-20180322-54893-1bpgl0t.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=648&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/211577/original/file-20180322-54893-1bpgl0t.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=648&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/211577/original/file-20180322-54893-1bpgl0t.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=648&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">CNBC reporter Christina Wilkie’s tweet about Kellyanne Conway’s attack on a Democratic political candidate.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Twitter</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In 2015, the <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/federal-eye/wp/2015/11/13/no-tweeting-what-you-actually-think-about-clinton-or-carson-if-youre-on-the-clock-new-limits-on-feds/">Hatch Act was clarified</a> to prohibit federal employees from, among other things, liking or retweeting a political candidate while on the job, even during break time. Some in sensitive positions, like law enforcement or intelligence, are even prohibited from doing so during their off-hours.</p>
<p>Despite that attempt at clarity, in today’s hyperpartisan climate, social media and 24-hour connectivity have helped blur the line between a public employee acting in their official capacity and their private life. </p>
<p>In the Trump era, major <a href="https://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/01/how-u-s-foreign-policy-is-being-shaped-by-trumps-tweets.html">public policy decisions</a> can be announced from the president’s own social media accounts. But those posts can also often include attacks on his political opponents and encouragement that his supporters vote a certain way. Both the attacks and encouragement would violate the Hatch Act for a federal employee, even if the employee simply retweeted the president’s own message.</p>
<p>Kellyanne Conway’s violations help remind us that the line between political activity and professional neutrality still exists for federal employees. And in this increasingly connected world, the opportunities to fall short are plentiful.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/93165/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Matthew May does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>US law limits public employees’ political activity. But in today’s hyperpartisan political world, it’s getting harder for public employees to navigate between professional neutrality and politics.Matthew May, Research Associate, Boise State UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/745272017-03-21T20:28:27Z2017-03-21T20:28:27ZTrump’s credibility takes a hit as FBI finds no evidence of Obama ‘wiretap’<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/161723/original/image-20170321-9140-ae6n08.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">White House press secretary Sean Spicer defends President Trump's accusations against President Obama.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Reuters/Kevin Lamarque</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>FBI Director James Comey and National Security Agency Director Michael S. Rogers have both <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/20/us/politics/intelligence-committee-russia-donald-trump.html?_r=0">testified</a> before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence that they do not have any information or evidence to support US President Donald Trump’s claims the Obama administration wiretapped Trump Tower during the election. The committee is investigating allegations of <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/mar/20/fbi-director-comey-confirms-investigation-trump-russia">collusion</a> between Trump associates and Russian operatives to influence the US election.</p>
<p>The wiretapping claim became part of the investigation after Trump tweeted on March 4 that Barack Obama had ordered his phones be tapped prior to the November 2016 election. Two of the three tweets specifically claim that Obama had Trump’s phones tapped and that the former president was a “bad (or sick) guy”.</p>
<p>Comey and James Clapper, the former director of national intelligence, categorically denied that Obama ordered any such thing. Comey went so far as to request a formal denial from the Justice Department that would counter Trump’s accusation. </p>
<p>US intelligence officials and some members of Congress <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/wall-street-journal/white-house-to-ask-congress-for-probe-amid-wiretap-claims/news-story/5d7b953b44368f53fad234be2f11cd3e">criticised</a> the tweets and demanded evidence to support the astonishing claim that Obama, in ordering Trump’s phones to be tapped, may have acted illegally. The calls for Trump to explain how he came by such information attest to how extraordinary his behaviour is in this case.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"837996746236182529"}"></div></p>
<h2>What are we to make of Trump’s tweets?</h2>
<p>In the absence of any evidence to support the accusation, one is left to wonder where Trump came by such information. The logical assumption would usually be that a sitting president would only make such a claim if US intelligence agencies had briefed him. Broadcasting this on Twitter would still be extremely odd. </p>
<p>It seems likely, though, that this is not the case. Trump appears to have based his allegations <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/03/05/trumps-evidence-for-obama-wiretap-claims-relies-on-sketchy-anonymously-sourced-reports/?utm_term=.6f74100287e4">primarily on an article</a> he read on the right-wing website Breitbart. </p>
<p>If true, this would indicate a disturbing trend in which Trump sees or hears a claim made on cable TV or by Breitbart writers, and immediately launches a Twitterstorm without verifying the information, or thinking through the implications for policy and public diplomacy. </p>
<p>Trump’s use of Twitter has caused concern for his <a href="http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/trump-twitter-staffer-235263">staff</a>. Some former campaign staffers have even been offering advice to current occupants of the White House on strategies to keep the president from broadcasting his thoughts inappropriately. </p>
<p>The US president is one of the most powerful individuals in the world and, for this reason, what the person occupying that position says matters. The president’s words can influence public opinion, set the country’s legislative agenda, signal America’s intentions to foreign leaders and influence global financial markets.</p>
<p>When the president accuses his predecessor of engaging in criminal behaviour akin to the Nixon Watergate scandal, it will not be treated lightly. To do so would fundamentally undermine the integrity of, and respect for, the office. </p>
<h2>The White House’s credibility problems</h2>
<p>Over the past few days, White House press secretary Sean Spicer and Trump adviser Kellyanne Conway have both attempted to downplay the seriousness of the accusations. They have claimed the president was referring more broadly to general surveillance of the Trump campaign.</p>
<p>Spicer <a href="http://edition.cnn.com/2017/03/13/politics/sean-spicer-donald-trump-wiretapping/">said</a>: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>The president used the word wiretaps in quotes to mean, broadly, surveillance and other activities.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Conway went even <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/mar/13/kellyanne-conway-trump-wiretap-surveillance-obama">further</a>, claiming that “there are many ways to surveil each other now, unfortunately”, including “microwaves that turn into cameras etc”.</p>
<p>As criticism has mounted and calls for evidence to support such a claim have intensified, Spicer cited a piece from Fox News that Obama had convinced GCHQ – British intelligence – to carry out the spying to avoid direct American involvement. In an unprecedented public response, GCHQ called the speculation “<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/mar/16/gchq-denies-wiretap-claim-trump-obama">utterly ridiculous</a>”. </p>
<p>Putting aside the absurdity of microwaves being remotely turned into cameras, Spicer and Conway are engaging in what has become a familiar pattern: Trump tweets something that causes a public backlash, and the White House then sends out various spokespeople to clarify and explain what the president really meant to say. </p>
<p>It has become standard to caution that Trump tweets shouldn’t be taken literally. This advice is not reasonable, though, particularly when those words accuse a former president of potentially criminal behaviour. </p>
<p>More than just Obama’s reputation and legacy is at stake here. Our ability to trust the White House and the president is necessary for the healthy functioning of America’s democracy, and essential in times of crisis.</p>
<p>This is all unfolding while North Korea engages in increasingly provocative behaviour, and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson appears to be <a href="http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/foreign-policy/324527-what-would-war-with-north-korea-really-look-like-trump">bumbling his way</a> through the crisis with little obvious guidance from the White House. The absence of any media travelling with Tillerson has added to unease over Trump’s North Korea policy. </p>
<p>The issue here is whether we will be able to trust what Trump says, particularly when it comes to classified intelligence.</p>
<h2>Democracy and truth</h2>
<p>Trump’s disregard for evidence or facts has prompted many to adopt the view that we now live in a post-truth world. The demand by some in Congress that, unless evidence is produced, Trump should <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2017/03/12/mccain-to-trump-retract-wiretapping-claim-or-prove-it/?utm_term=.1749f7ff280c">publicly retract</a> his accusation is a sign that facts do still matter. It also shows that the American political system, for all its flaws, still possesses mechanisms to hold the president to account.</p>
<p>The strength of America’s democracy relies on the checks and balances built into the separation of powers between the executive, legislative and judicial branches. Now more than ever, Congress needs to exercise its oversight role. </p>
<p>More is at stake than just Trump’s credibility. The world is watching to understand how the US president will behave when a serious crisis occurs, and whether or not evidence and facts will determine his response.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/74527/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Kumuda Simpson does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The absence of any evidence to support Donald Trump’s claims is more than just about the president’s credibility – it goes to whether we can trust any information from the White House.Kumuda Simpson, Lecturer in International Relations, La Trobe UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/727332017-02-24T02:06:55Z2017-02-24T02:06:55ZSeeking truth among ‘alternative facts’<p>Part of what I do as an archaeologist is judge between competing claims to truth. Indeed, you could say this is the entire purpose of science. Before we make a judgment about what is true, there are facts that have to be examined and weighed against one another.</p>
<p>When Trump’s senior advisor Kellyanne Conway made her now infamous <a href="http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/video/conway-press-secretary-gave-alternative-facts-860142147643">reference</a> to “alternative facts,” many viewers were stunned. But I am a scientist. I spend my days trying to pull “facts” out of the remains of the past. After thinking about what Conway said, I realized that it was not ridiculous at all.</p>
<p>There are always “alternative facts.” What matters is how we decide which of those alternative facts are most likely to be true. </p>
<h2>Science or authority?</h2>
<p>What made Conway’s suggesting “alternative facts” about the size of the crowd at Trump’s inauguration seem so ridiculous was that, from a scientific perspective, it was <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/01/24/fact-check-inauguration-crowd-size/96984496/">obviously false</a>. In science, we use empirical observations to generate “alternative facts” that we judge against one another using established bodies of method and theory and logical argument. Photos of the relatively small crowd at Trump’s inauguration gave empirical evidence that Conway’s “alternative facts” that the crowd was enormous were unlikely to be true. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/157034/original/image-20170215-27423-svbxzt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/157034/original/image-20170215-27423-svbxzt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=296&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/157034/original/image-20170215-27423-svbxzt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=296&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/157034/original/image-20170215-27423-svbxzt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=296&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/157034/original/image-20170215-27423-svbxzt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=372&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/157034/original/image-20170215-27423-svbxzt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=372&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/157034/original/image-20170215-27423-svbxzt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=372&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Neanderthal stone tools, c. 50,000 to 70,000 years old in Landesmuseum Württemberg, Stuttgart, Germany.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/76/Stone_tools%2C_Neanderthal%2C_Bad_Urach%2C_Wittlingen%2C_c._50%2C000_to_70%2C000_years_old_-_Landesmuseum_W%C3%BCrttemberg_-_Stuttgart%2C_Germany_-_DSC02685.jpg">Wikimedia Commons</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>I’m often asked how archaeologists know whether an object is a stone tool rather than a fragmented rock. We don’t always. Looking at the same rock I might see a tool, while another archaeologist might not. Through science we can usually determine what is true.</p>
<p>We look at how the rock was broken, and whether the breaks were more likely from natural or human processes. We look at wear on the stone to see if it matches that of other known tools. In short, we use empirical observations and methods to decide which description best represents reality.</p>
<p>Conway’s statement was not based on a scientific perspective, but rather on a much older tradition of deciding what is true: the argument from authority.</p>
<p>It was the <a href="https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/enlightenment/">Enlightenment</a> that gave us science as we know it today. The scientific method was an active creation of men – and a few stalwart women – in the aftermath of the <a href="http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2016/01/economist-explains-5">Thirty Years’ War</a> who were intent on upending what at the time was viewed as a venerable method of judging between competing claims to truth: Whatever the people in power said was true. That an individual saw or thought or reasoned something different did not matter. The men who created science believed argument from authority caused the Thirty Years’ War, and they developed science so it could <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=6bYgQ26xGXMC&printsec=frontcover&dq=isbn:0226808386&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi9haWDwYjSAhUIxVQKHUC9AHQQ6AEIHDAA#v=onepage&q&f=false">never happen again</a>.</p>
<p>By contrast, Press Secretary Sean Spicer’s <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/sean-spicer-berates-media-over-inauguration-crowd-size-coverage-2017-1">statement</a> on the inauguration shows argument from authority in its clearest form: “This was the largest audience to ever witness an inauguration, period.” His attitude isn’t just anti-fact, it’s anti-science.</p>
<h2>Are we entering a post-Enlightenment world?</h2>
<p>We seem to have raised the argument from authority to a new level of acceptance, culminating in this election’s cascade of “false news” and “alternative facts.” I believe it is the culmination of a <a href="http://www.salon.com/2008/02/15/susan_jacoby/">long retreat</a> from the scientific perspective on truth. </p>
<p>When I was a new professor in the early 1990s teaching human evolution, I found myself pitted against creationists who believed God created humans exactly as we are today, without any process of evolution. Theirs was an argument from authority; specifically, the authority of the first two chapters of <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+1">Genesis</a>. I did not recognize that argument at the time, and tried to counter it with scientific facts. </p>
<p>I realize now that my approach did not work because we were not arguing about the scientifically accepted facts. We were using different methods of judging what is and what is not a fact. This debate had been active since the Scopes “<a href="http://moses.law.umn.edu/darrow/trials.php?tid=7">Monkey Trial</a>” in 1925, where high school science teacher John Scopes was arrested and tried for teaching human evolution in a public school. But in the 1980s, the debate became a tool in the political arsenal of the religious right. Their growing power in American politics rekindled a longstanding American tradition of <a href="http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/03/09/richard-hofstadter-and-america-s-new-wave-of-anti-intellectualism.html">anti-intellectualism</a> and unease with the scientific perspective. </p>
<p>Empirical data carry little weight against an argument from authority. And the reverse is true too.</p>
<p>In 2010 I became embroiled in a debate within the American Anthropological Association about their revised mission statement, which had thrown into question the <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/10/science/10anthropology.html">role of science in anthropology</a>. All references to “science” had been removed from the mission statement. I argued that anthropology had been led astray by postmodernism and needed to reestablish science as its guide. </p>
<p>Postmodernism arose out of linguistics, but was adopted widely in literary criticism and anthropology. <a href="http://www.iep.utm.edu/soc-sci/#SSH2cii">Postmodernism</a> argues that empirical reality cannot be separated from the experiences and biases of the observer. For example, if I were in the crowd at Trump’s inauguration I might think it was the largest ever because it was the largest crowd I had ever experienced. But the experience of someone who regularly attends large events might think the crowd was relatively small. Even though we would be observing the same “fact,” our understanding of the “truth” of the inaugural crowd size would differ because of our differing experiences with crowds. In effect, both would be true.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"822548522633400321"}"></div></p>
<p>In a postmodern world, facts are slippery because they are shaped by personal experience. In its extreme form, postmodernism melds into <a href="http://www.iep.utm.edu/solipsis/">solipsism</a>, which is the idea that there is nothing real outside one’s own mind. In solipsism the inaugural crowd exists only in one’s mind. The inauguration broke attendance records because it did in Trump’s mind. In this way all argument devolves into an argument from authority – the authority of the self.</p>
<p>Is Trump’s presidency part of a larger movement toward a solipsistic world? Perhaps. And if so, which solipsist gets to say what is fact and what is not? </p>
<p>And where does that leave science?</p>
<p>We must recognize the logic we use to discriminate fact from nonfact. Showing something to be false by “fact checking” has little impact on those whose facts are determined by authority. If we want to undermine the argument from authority we cannot do it through science – we have to do it by undermining the authority itself. And if we want to undermine science – well, we’ve been doing a pretty good job of that already.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/72733/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Peter Neal Peregrine does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>How do we determine what is fact? An archaeologist explains how the answer has changed over time and why it matters so much now.Peter Neal Peregrine, Professor of Anthropology and Museum Studies, Lawrence UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/719002017-01-27T14:42:41Z2017-01-27T14:42:41ZTruthiness and alternative facts: meaning is a moveable feast<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/154385/original/image-20170126-30413-gwcv6x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Lambros Kazan</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Sales of George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four have apparently <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/books/2017/jan/24/george-orwell-1984-sales-surge-kellyanne-conway-alternative-facts">surged</a> since Kellyanne Conway introduced the phrase “<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/01/22/kellyanne-conway-says-donald-trumps-team-has-alternate-facts-which-pretty-much-says-it-all/">alternative facts</a>” into public discourse. </p>
<p>For many, the term is reminiscent of Orwell’s dystopian <a href="https://www.dailykos.com/story/2017/01/22/1623583/-The-New-Newspeak-When-Trump-and-Co-Lie-It-is-Alternative-Facts">Newspeak</a>, the imaginary language used by the novel’s totalitarian government to control the way the population thinks. It also allows for the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublethink">doublethink</a> of the slogans “War is Peace”, “Freedom is Slavery”, and “Ignorance is Strength” that also feature in the book. But while Newspeak is fiction, there’s at least an element of truth to the way it shows how meaning is shaped. </p>
<p>Language is never a register of completely stable meaning. Words are always slippery, always open to manipulation. We may mock how blatant Conway is in her manipulation, but disputing the meanings of words is always part of political debate.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/IcBblq-QOo4?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>In disagreements over linguistic meaning, a usual first move is to consult the dictionary. As the lexicography scholar <a href="https://www.routledge.com/Lexicography-An-Introduction/Jackson/p/book/9780415231732">Howard Jackson</a> wrote: “We all take what the dictionary says as authoritative: if the dictionary says so, then it is so.”</p>
<p>But this is built on a flawed conception both of what a dictionary is – and what language is. The dictionary is one of <a href="http://oro.open.ac.uk/22241/">those concepts</a>, like the Bible, which gets talked about as if there were a single canonical version. In the same way, this platonic ideal of the dictionary is seen as the most accurate record of a language. When people complain, for example, that such-and-such a word isn’t in <em>the</em> dictionary, they’re questioning the legitimacy of that word and suggesting that it isn’t a proper part of the language. </p>
<h2>Dr Johnson’s oats</h2>
<p>In actual fact, of course, there is no one dictionary. There are multiple versions, each of which includes a slightly different set of words, which are defined in slightly different ways. This has always been the case. Early lexicographers such as Dr Johnson and Pierre Larousse may have aimed at objectivity, but a certain subjectivity still crept into their work. A famous example is Johnson’s definition of “<a href="http://www.bl.uk/learning/langlit/dic/johnson/oats/oats.html">oats</a>” which manages to include a very non-objective sideswipe at his northern neighbours: “Grain, which in England is generally given to horses, but in Scotland supports the people.” </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/154382/original/image-20170126-23838-1vrieac.gif?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/154382/original/image-20170126-23838-1vrieac.gif?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/154382/original/image-20170126-23838-1vrieac.gif?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=324&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/154382/original/image-20170126-23838-1vrieac.gif?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=324&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/154382/original/image-20170126-23838-1vrieac.gif?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=324&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/154382/original/image-20170126-23838-1vrieac.gif?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=407&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/154382/original/image-20170126-23838-1vrieac.gif?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=407&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/154382/original/image-20170126-23838-1vrieac.gif?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=407&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Sideswipe at the Scots.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Samuel Johnson: A Dictionary of the English Language</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>This subjectivity simply reflects the fact that the meanings of words aren’t absolute constants – that definitions stem from the way language is used. This not only changes over time, but can be contested and fought over. Take the word “<a href="https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/just-a-theory-7-misused-science-words/">theory</a>” for example. For some it means a generalised scientific explanation of phenomena in the world. For others it’s a mere guess at how the world might work.</p>
<h2>Difference of opinion</h2>
<p>The internet, with its pluralism and user-based authorship, brings this clearly into focus. There’s an active online community dedicated to documenting and discussing vocabulary, one of the most popular examples of which is <a href="http://www.urbandictionary.com">Urban Dictionary</a>. Started in 1999 by Aaron Peckham, the idea behind this is to record ephemeral and everyday spoken language, submitted by users, and to give definitions which are explicitly meant to be personal rather than standardised. </p>
<p>As <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2011/apr/21/in-praise-urban-dictionaries">Peckham says</a>: “Most dictionaries are objective. Urban Dictionary is completely subjective. It’s not presented as fact, [but] as opinions.” The opinion-led nature of the definitions means that it can be used as an arena for political debate. Here, for example, are two entries for the word “<a href="http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=ObamaCare&page=3">Obamacare</a>”.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>A term invented by impoverished, dumb-ass neocons to apply negative connotation to the bi-partisan, congressional healthcare plan.</p>
<p>Also known as socialism. giving all Americans cheap bull shit healthcare. A plan to destroy the quality of healthcare.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>All of which brings us to a recent initiative by the website <a href="http://www.allsides.com/Dictionary">AllSides</a>. As part of their <a href="https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/academics-use-new-dictionary-aid-students-era-fake-news">educational remit</a> of exposing bias in the media, they have produced a short dictionary which presents definitions of a number of terms – including “<a href="http://www.allsides.com/dictionary/facts">facts</a>”, “<a href="http://www.allsides.com/dictionary/power">power</a>” and “<a href="http://www.allsides.com/dictionary/truth">truth</a>” – which often provoke controversy and end up meaning starkly different things to different people. </p>
<p>Their definitions offer perspectives from opposing sides of the political spectrum with the aim being to flag up that “until we understand what a term means to others, we don’t know the issue and can’t effectively communicate”. The project foregrounds the possibility of subjectivity in word meaning – not in the improvised way that Urban Dictionary does, but with greater explicitness than a “traditional” dictionary does.</p>
<p>Acknowledging subjectivity and pluralism isn’t to imply that linguistic meaning is a free-for-all. Like <a href="http://www.bartleby.com/73/2019.html">Humpty Dumpty</a> in Alice Through the Looking-Glass, we can use a word to mean whatever we choose it to mean. Language has the ability to be surprisingly stable, despite its constant evolution and endless variety. But what it does point to is the way that meaning also resides in dialogue and negotiation with other people. That meaning a mixture of both evidence and, importantly, persuasion – which is why it can be so politically charged.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/71900/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Philip Seargeant does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Language is not fixed and meaning is what people make it.Philip Seargeant, Senior Lecturer in Applied Linguistics, The Open UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.