In recent weeks, several news outlets have tried to update progress on the White House's Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships. The catalyst seems to be the Pew Forum report that showed a relative lack of press scrutiny for President Obama's office, relative to that for President Bush. As I wrote at the time, there are perfectly understandable reasons for this discrepancy in coverage. AU's Rob Boston points to explanations as well, in response to a critical Wall Street Journal op-ed suggesting a sinister double standard is at work. Boston writes:
When Bush unveiled the faith-base initiative, it was his first domestic program. It was seen as new and ground-breaking, so it was big news.
Obama is merely continuing Bush’s approach. Fair or not, from the media’s perspective, that’s just not as newsworthy. You’re not going to see headlines in the paper reading, “Existing Program To Continue.”
And yet, that seems like the story the Washington Post essentially ran today – "Obama Cautious on Faith-Based Initiatives: Activists Cite Campaign Pledge, but President Is Slow to Break With Bush Policies." Not exactly Rob's headline, but not far from it either. The piece does point to the smoldering issue that animates church-state advocates on both sides of the debate: discrimination in hiring using taxpayer funds. We have been in a holding pattern waiting for the Obama team to announce a policy, or to begin implementing an ad hoc approach, but the news is, I guess, that we are still waiting.
Obama has pushed to the Justice Department the most vexing question: whether religious organizations receiving government contracts can reject job candidates on the basis of their faith.
Lawyers in the department's Office of Legal Counsel, which advises the executive branch, are considering a 2007 Bush-era religious freedom memo that carved out an exemption in employment discrimination law, allowing the Justice Department to award $1.5 million to a Christian charity for a gang-prevention effort, according to a legal source. The question, according to a Justice Department source, is not on the front burner for an office grappling with urgent national security and legislative issues.
As someone who cares very much about the issue of faith-based funding and discrimination in hiring (I'm against both!), I have to admit that still sounds like a pretty decent reason for delay. At some point, lack of action on this point will be a notable failure. For me, we're not there yet.
In the meantime, there is plenty of room for controversy, and you have to give Dan Gilgoff credit for trying to find some. In an interview with Faith Advisory Council member Frank Page, the most conservative of the bunch, Gilgoff does his best to pry loose any trouble (Will you quit if you don't get results? Is the White House just using you for politics?), Page remains remarkably sanguine about the experience and the council's work.
More updates, I'm sure, as this (as yet non-) story eventually develops.
