Festival of Slights, the 6th Night: The Jew Counter

“The other demographic criteria that was discussed.”

Mother Jones illustration

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

Happy Hanukkah! Mother Jones is celebrating this yearā€™s festival of lights with a festival of slights. Specifically, President Donald Trumpā€™s slights toward the Jewish people.

Since his inauguration, many of President Donald Trump’s appointees have made headlines for being excruciatingly unfit for their jobs. Take Rick Perry, Trump’s pick to lead the Department of Energyā€”the very agency the former Texas governor once proposed eliminating (sort of). But some of Trump’s other controversial nominees have flown a bit more under the radar.

Perhaps no one embodies that better than Fred Malek, a Republican operative chosen by Trump to run the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, an influential think tank. Malek was a noteworthy pick for a number of reasons, including a notoriously anti-Semitic incident that took place during the Nixon era.

In 1971, President Richard Nixon became convinced that the Democratic Jews over at the Bureau of Labor Statistics were conspiring against him. As The Atlantic has recounted, Nixon thought this cabal of civil servants was downplaying the administration’s progress in reducing unemployment. Nixon’s chief of staff, HR Haldeman, directed Malek to tally up the number of Jews in the bureau. Here’s how the Washington Post explained the episode when new documents were released in 2010:

In a February [1971] memo to [Haldeman], Malek described statistician Harold Goldstein, who he said had mishandled a news briefing, as “a competent civil servant” without partisan bias. But Malek added that “we might be better served if a Republican partisan handled these briefings in the future.”

Haldeman responded with a request in March 1971 that “we take on and completely rearrange” the bureau, to which Malek responded that he had “a general plan of attack” to analyze the attitudes of all key people, including their “loyalties.”

[ā€¦]

On July 26, Malek aide Dan Kingsley sent Malek 13 names that included the people’s age and length of service; he described them as “key” employees without mentioning the word Jewish. But Haldeman asked Malek that day for more information on the “demographic breakdown” of key bureau personnel. In a July 27 memo to Haldeman, which has previously been the subject of news reports, Malek responded that only one of 50 top personnel was a registered Republican and that “13 out of the 38 fit the other demographic criteria that was discussed.”

Three days later, Kingsley wrote a memo to Haldemanā€”signed by Malekā€”describing the 13 as “ethnics,” their euphemism for Jews, and clarifying which of the larger pool of top personnel were “ethnics.” The memo includes the following annotation: “It is interesting that of the top 17 positions, 10 are ethnics.” It was followed by Malek’s typed initials: “FVM.” Reached in Florida, Kingsley said he did not recall these interactions.

Several Jews were ultimately transferred within the department. Malek has repeatedly apologized for his actions and has insisted that he never did anything to affect anyone’s employment status based on religion. (Timothy Noah has argued that Malek has downplayed his culpability.)

Malek has never seemed to escape the scandal. It came up again during his tenure as Republican National Committee deputy chairman in the late 1980s, when the Washington Post published an explosive story on the matter. It came up when former Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell (who ended up entangled in his own scandal) appointed Malek to run a government reform commission in 2010. And it came up again when he advised failed vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin.

As it turns out, being known as the “Jew counter” is not something people easily forget. Not that it mattered to Trump.

Read more from the Festival of Slights:

The 1st Night: Trumpā€™s Book of Hitler Speeches

The 2nd Night: The Sheriffā€™s Star

The 3rd Night: ā€œHolocaust Centersā€

The 4th Night: ā€œShort Guys That Wear Yarmulkesā€

The 5th Night: Trumpā€™s Closing Argument to Voters

Image credit: Shutterstock; farakos/Getty

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We canā€™t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who wonā€™t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its futureā€”you.

And we need readers to show up for us big timeā€”again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We canā€™t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who wonā€™t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its futureā€”you.

And we need readers to show up for us big timeā€”again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate