In January 2024, John Sabatina Sr., the newly inaugurated Philadelphia Register of Wills, created a hit list of 30 employees who were scheduled to be fired — not for poor performance, but to make way for Sabatina’s friends and supporters. According to The Philadelphia Inquirer, the City has agreed to pay one of the wrongly fired employees $40,000 because Sabatini fired him for not supporting his campaign, in violation of the plaintiff’s First Amendment rights. Philadelphia taxpayers so far have paid $656,000 in legal settlements caused by Sabatina’s actions.
Patronage, hiring people because you like them and they are loyal to you, has long been the m.o. of the Register of Wills office, one of the few outliers — along with the Philadelphia Parking Authority and the Sheriff’s Department — in city, state, and federal government not covered by civil service protection.
Merit-based civil service is essential to good government
Until 1883, government jobs at all levels were available only to those who had won the favor of elected officials. It wasn’t what you knew, but who you knew. In other words, according to a famous quote from a staffer in 1948 Illinois gubernatorial candidate Adlai Stevenson II’s office: “We don’t want nobody nobody sent.”
Such favoritism did not lead to effective public service or good government. The Pendleton Act of 1883 established a merit-based system for federal employment. The goal was to reduce corruption inherent in what was called “the spoils system.” Most city and state governments eventually established their own civil service provisions. This is not to say that patronage disappeared (cross-reference the Philadelphia Register of Wills), but blatant favoritism stopped being the norm. As a result, more people who are actually qualified for government jobs have for over 100 years served the public good.
Until 1883, government jobs at all levels were available only to those who had won the favor of elected officials. It wasn’t what you knew, but who you knew.
In just nine months, the Trump administration, with the compliance of Congress and, to some extent, the U.S. Supreme Court, has effectively returned us to 1883. The stated goal was downsizing federal government. Whether or not you believe we need fewer public servants, no successful reduction can be carried on haphazardly with self-serving and manipulative intent.
For all Trump’s talk of merit, thousands of highly performing civil servants have been laid off. Some lost their jobs because they expressed ideas different from the current political script and others to make room for political cronies. Merit did not help them keep their jobs, and competence did not prevent them from being replaced by those less qualified. We heard vague accusations about “fraud, waste, and corruption” supposedly rampant in federal agencies, but no one provided proof, not DOGE, not U.S. Office of Management and Budget Director Russ Vought, not Trump.
Civil Service requirements and tests protect the public. From FAA (Federal Aviation Administration ) employees, who ensure our safety in the air, to Social Security advisers, who make sure we receive retirement and disability income, we want civil servants hired for their talent, not because they wear a MAGA hat.
Patronage now applies to favored universities
We all remember the disdain we felt toward teachers who selected students for special favors based on craven allegiance. In memory of Dame Maggie Smith and to see the danger of selecting teacher’s pets, I recommend watching her great 1969 film, The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie, based on the 1961 novel by Muriel Spark. At an Edinburgh private school, Miss Brodie invites certain girls to be part of the “Brodie Set,” extolling the chosen ones as “la crème de la crème.” Miss Brodie manipulates the girls to accept fascist ideas and echo her admiration for Benito Mussolini and Francisco Franco. Girls who did not go along were excluded from the Brodie Set — they weren’t worthy to be teacher’s pets. I’ll avoid spoilers except to say that it ultimately does not go well for the students or for the teacher.
The Trump administration is taking favoritism to a whole new level. They have gone beyond demanding loyalty from individuals to inviting a select group of nine universities, including Penn, to join what we might call the Trump set, or as they entitle it, “Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education,” crafted by Penn alum and patron Marc Rowan. The nine are asked to sign a compact giving the administration strong influence over hiring, admissions, tuition, and curriculum in exchange for “substantial and meaningful federal grants.”
On its own, the University of Pennsylvania is already instituting reforms that reflect many of the Compact points that make sense. For example, Penn may not be freezing tuition (one of the demands), but they are offering a financial aid guarantee covering at least full tuition, financed by grants and work study funds, for undergraduate students from families with incomes up to $200,000. And here is the crucial point: It is not in the interest of the general public to make grant funding dependent on Trump’s partiality. The public must demand the restoration of a merit-based process. Our health is jeopardized by science grants dependent on favoritism rather than on the careful judgment of scientific peers.
For example, until nine months ago, distinguished scientists would review university grant applications, for example, for cancer research. One condition of the Compact is the requirement that all favored universities require standardized testing for undergraduate admission. But that has nothing to do with the talent of faculty researchers. Why jeopardize grant-funded study of cancer, Alzheimer’s disease and more because of the Trump administration’s desire to micro-manage undergraduate admission? As with all patronage programs, the general public loses.
And let’s be frank about Trump’s authoritarian goals. They are all about power. He’s tried the stick to get obedience from universities, resulting in increased sympathy for Harvard University’s resistance to First Amendment threats. Now Trump is trying the carrot, cynically flattering nine selective universities with manipulative praise for their commitment to reform. (Have you watched The Godfather movies lately?) As Amy Reid, Interim Program Director at PEN AMERICA, says in Inside Higher Education, “It is wrong to call this a compact because there’s nothing mutual about it.”
It’s not a compact; it’s a hand grenade. Unfortunately, unnamed additional universities may be contacting the Department of Education (even with the federal government closed!), vying to be included in the Trump set.
On October 16, Penn President Larry Jameson announced that Penn, like MIT and Brown University, will refuse to sign the compact. Jameson does not want Penn to be a teacher’s pet.
Patronage is ugly in Philadelphia’s Register of Wills office. It is perilous when applied to university grants designed to improve our quality of life.
What to do
- Demand that elected officials, city, state, and federal, protect the civil service system.
- Demand that Congress does its job by reigning in harmful executive orders and actions. The Republicans hold the majority in the U.S. House and Senate. Those elected officials should hear about your dissatisfaction.
- Do what you can to support local universities and your own Alma Mater. Protect higher education.
Elaine Maimon, Ph.D., is the author of Leading Academic Change: Vision, Strategy, Transformation. Her long career in higher education has encompassed top executive positions at public universities as well as distinction as a scholar in rhetoric/composition. Her co-authored book, Writing in the Arts and Sciences, has been designated as a landmark text. She is a Distinguished Fellow of the Association for Writing Across the Curriculum.
Clarication: This piece was updated on October 16 to reflect the fact that Penn rejected the White House compact.
MORE FROM ELAINE MAIMON
