By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Education Department employees returning from furlough discovered their out-of-office email messages had been altered to include partisan language blaming Democrats for the government shutdown. Several civil servants reported that their pre-approved, nonpartisan messages were replaced with accusatory statements without their consent, and some had the changes revert back even after they corrected them. The altered messages, presented in the first person, stated that the employee was unable to respond due to the actions of Senate Democrats. This action by the Education Department appears to cross a line, pulling civil servants into partisan political statements, with one official defending the messaging by saying, “Where’s the lie?”
Read the original article here
Education Dept. employees’ emails automatically changed to blame Democrats for shutdown
The story is pretty straightforward: someone, somewhere, decided to meddle with the email systems of Education Department employees, and that meddling took the form of automatically altering their out-of-office replies to pin the blame for a government shutdown squarely on the Democrats. It’s a move that reeks of bad faith, and immediately raises some serious questions, starting with legality.
This sort of manipulation, especially when it comes to government employees, seems like a textbook violation of the Hatch Act. This act is designed to prevent government employees from engaging in political activity while on the job. Changing someone’s email signature to reflect a partisan stance, especially when they had no input in that message, certainly seems to cross the line. The thing is, these rules only matter if someone is willing to enforce them.
The outrage is almost palpable. Imagine setting up your out-of-office message, maybe just saying you’re unavailable or providing contact information, and then finding out someone has hijacked it to promote a political message you don’t even agree with. It’s a complete erosion of individual autonomy and professional integrity. It is easy to get annoyed.
And let’s be clear: this isn’t just about disagreeing with the message itself. It’s about the principle. Every government worker, regardless of their personal political views, has a right to free speech. This includes the right to *not* be forced to say something they don’t believe in. It’s akin to robbing someone of their voice, and forcing them to deliver a message they did not create.
The potential for such actions to erode the public trust in government agencies is profound. When people can’t trust that their communications, especially those coming from supposedly neutral agencies, are genuine, it sows seeds of cynicism and distrust. It undermines the very idea of a government that serves all its citizens, not just those who align with a particular political ideology.
It’s a dangerous game to play, and the implications stretch far beyond a few altered email messages. It’s a tactic that smacks of desperation, a reliance on cheap, carny-like tactics and the practice of repeating the lie often enough that it becomes truth, as if to institutionalize this practice across government agencies.
The response should be swift and decisive. There should be consequences for those involved. It may seem like an abstract thing, but this is a violation of rights, one that deserves attention. The administration should be held accountable. The leaders of the department, and the person who ordered the change need to face the consequences.
This kind of action is a symptom of a larger problem: the erosion of norms, the disregard for the rules, and the increasing polarization of our political landscape. It should be concerning.
It also highlights a broader issue: the vulnerability of our systems. So much of our government is based on trust, on the honor system. But when that trust is betrayed, and when the rules are ignored, it can lead to the kind of abuses we’re seeing here. It’s something that those in power will not enforce, which would solve the problem.
The “extremist right” will not be held accountable. There are those who believe that everything looks “left” to them, and regular run-of-the-mill Democrats look like “radicals.”
The irony is not lost on anyone. If a Democrat had done this, the outrage would have been deafening. The double standard is glaring. It’s a reminder that in politics, the ends often justify the means, even when those means are unethical or illegal.
It’s a reminder that the truth is not always a priority. Reality has no meaning for them anymore.