In 2021 President Biden nominated Martha Williams to run the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Several powerful environmental industry groups objected and several lobbied intensely against Senate confirmation. This is a position once considered mostly nonpartisan, and historically held by scientists, not political activists. So, a political battle over that nomination has only happened twice in the past, first with President Trump’s nominee and then with Biden’s. Is this the way it will be from now on?
Since the Pendleton Act of 1883 created the civil service, there has been an understanding of federal agencies as non-political, staffed by experts hired and promoted based on merit and not connections. Even many political appointees are required to be subject experts. Maybe not the White House Chief of Staff, but some agencies by their nature require knowledge of the subject matter. Indeed, the 1940 law creating the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, while providing a director appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, requires that the appointee be a scientist. Title 16, U.S. Code, Section 742b: “No individual may be appointed as the Director unless he is, by reason of scientific education and experience, knowledgeable in the principles of fisheries and wildlife management.”
Note the requirement for BOTH scientific education AND experience, not either/or. Martha Williams has neither. She is a lawyer, who also has a BA in philosophy. Still, she was confirmed by the Senate, with supporters rationalizing that the Senate is ultimate arbiter of who is and is not qualified.
Two years later, dozens of scientists from universities and the environmental industry have begun a new push to remove Williams, saying she lacks the required educational background, despite her Senate approval. More than 100 scientists signed a letter to Biden and Interior Secretary Deb Haaland demanding Williams’ removal. They say she is the first USFWS Director to lack the required scientific training. That is not precisely true, so maybe that horse already left the barn.
Ira Gabrielson, an ornithologist appointed by FDR, was the first Director, followed by John Farley and Dan Jantzen, all trained scientists. When JFK replaced President Eisenhower, he kept Jantzen on, just as Jimmy Carter later kept Nixon’s appointee, Lynn Greenwalt, because they were regarded as scientists, not political hacks. That began to change when President Clinton appointed Mollie Beattie, educated in philosophy and forestry. The latter degree made her technically a scientist, but she arguably lacked education and experience “in the principles of fisheries and wildlife management” that the law requires. The same was said of Steve Williams, another trained forester, appointed to run USFWS by George W. Bush.
President Trump first nominated a long-time director of Utah’s Division of Wildlife, Greg Sheehan, but opponents seized on his lack of a science degree until he withdrew. Trump then nominated Aurelia Skipwith, a molecular biologist, who faced similar opposition despite her science degree, with opponents emphasizing that she lacked specific wildlife training. Funny how the same opponents did not object to Beattie or Williams on that basis.
Opponents of Martha Williams, though, see this as a watershed moment. The letter’s primary author said, “I see this appointment as a tipping point, where politics will forever override statutory credentials.” At least one lawsuit suggests Williams was appointed illegally, and her decisions are therefore void.
No court is going to question the appointment, order her dismissal, or block her decisions on that basis. She may not be qualified to manage wildlife, but apparently she is well qualified to manage political correctness, wokeness, diversity, equity, and inclusion – which she now says is the “number one priority” of the agency. I re-read the entire body of law governing the USFWS and its duties. I couldn’t find any reference to that, only to fisheries, wildlife, habitat, refuges, endangered species, and the like.
Now, agency employees are allowed to take as much time off “as they feel they need” to participate in “diversity groups.” They are being sent to diversity training, and “eco-grief” training to help employees “cope with the trauma of global warming or other environmental changes.”
One official, a principal deputy director of the agency wrote, “only when we are able to consistently attract and develop a workforce representative of America and provide them with an inclusive work environment, will the service’s mission be assured.” That’s why, she wrote, “I cannot think of a single more important issue for us to be focused on at this current time.” Really? How about protecting wildlife and its habitat?
Comments on this entry are closed.