Hiring police applicants who support far-left or far-right organizations: A qualitative exploration of New York State chiefs’ and administrators’ viewpoint

Abstract

This study is a qualitative exploration of the thoughts of police chiefs and upper-level police administrators in New York State regarding the hiring of applicants who hold left-wing or right-wing ideological perspectives. A near equal number of respondents indicated little hesitancy to hire, while others stating they should not hire such an applicant. Some respondents offered non-committal viewpoints. Most respondents provided a more thoughtful response, indicating the complexity of this issue for police agencies. The overall conclusion is that employing officers who hold biased opinions can impact police legitimacy. Policy implications and considerations for future research are discussed.

Keywords

Legitimacy police hiring recruitment

Introduction

Negative publicity can seriously impact the public perception of the police. Law enforcement agencies strive to be legitimate by persuading citizens to believe the agency “is entitled to be deferred to and obeyed” (Sunshine and Taylor, 2003: 514). When law enforcement officers engage in illegal activity, corruption, or abuse their authority, these behaviors threaten police legitimacy (Bottoms and Tankebe, 2012; Tankebe, 2010). Police officer involvement in the event at the U.S. Capitol on January 6^th1 would seem to fall into the category of questionable or even unacceptable officer behavior, even if their actions did not violate any laws and occurred in their capacity as a private citizen. According to news outlets, current and retired police officers employed by both large and smaller agencies from across the country, either attended the initial protest or later entered the U.S. Capital on January 6^th (USA Today, 3 May 2021). While police officer participation in the January 6^th event is not an indication an officer is an extremist, Jonathan Lewis, a Research Fellow in the Program on Extremism at George Washington University, suggested the public will likely assume that there is a connection between involvement in the January 6^th event and police officers holding extremist views (personal communications, April 13, 2023).

Police agencies employing officers who were involved in the January 6^th event could lose legitimacy in the public’s eyes. Recent scholarship found that police officers perceive the participation of other officers “in any violent protests as negative, including the participation of law enforcement during the January 6^th Capitol insurrection” (Woods and Blackmon, 2021: 52). It is understandable that police agencies reviewed the actions of currently employed officers involved in the January 6^th event to minimize threats to agency legitimacy. It can be argued that a police officer has the right to protest or have ideological views, just like any other U.S. citizen. If their behavior related to those ideologies was lawful, it can be contended that it is no business of their employer. Still, the mere appearance of unacceptable behavior by an off-duty employee could reverberate onto the agency.² Further, an officer performing their official duties may be automatically considered biased if they merely support “far-left” or “far-right” ideologies or political beliefs. Therefore, it is reasonable that police administrators would have serious reservations about employing someone holding or supporting ideologies that might appear biased. Police leadership would want to preemptively act to curtail any future negative public perceptions that might be caused by employing a person with the appearance of extremism in their political views. It should be noted that many decades of research consistently demonstrated that police officers are mostly conservative minded people (Balch, 1972; Caldero and Crank, 2010; Chwast, 1965; Fielding and Fielding, 1987). Therefore, those who will likely apply for law enforcement will have conservative political leanings. While applicants supporting far-left and far-right political ideologies may be potentially problematic for police agencies, it is reasonable to assume that applicants supporting far-right ideologies would be applying for jobs, and thus most concerning to law enforcement leaders.

This tension between individual rights and agency legitimacy is central to the current study. Specifically, this study is a preliminary exploration of the thoughts of police chiefs and upper-level administrators in one U.S. state regarding the possible hiring of applicants who may have a history of supporting far-left or far-right organizations. This research is the first attempt to fill gaps in the policing literature with respect to hiring applicants who support far-left or far-right political ideologies. For example, orthodox liberal values favor social equality, but far-left beliefs hold that social injustices are related to economic greed (Noel, 2016). Traditional conservative values include a belief in free markets, but more extreme views can include hostility toward liberal democracy (Davies and Lynch, 2002). Thus, police officers backing far-left or far-right views may ignore illegal behavior by those they support (Speri, 2017), or officers may actively engage in behavior identifying them to the public as affiliated with far-left or far-right groups (Ward, 2018). Even if no illegal behavior occurs, employing officers with far-left or far-right affiliations can threaten police agency legitimacy.

This study may identify whether those having a role in hiring new officers believe there is a need to look beyond standardized tests in the screening process (e.g., physical agility, polygraph, and reading comprehension).³ Further, and more broadly, the findings may illuminate intangible characteristics that are considered problematic within policing by those already working in the field. A review of the literature is presented, followed by the data collection, methodology and analysis. Results are presented with a discussion of the findings.

Literature review

Hiring standards in policing

The police are expected to be neutral, fair, and apply even-handed treatment to successfully carry out their tasks as it is an occupation that allows individual officers the discretion to make independent decisions in situations that can be morally and ethically complex (Hickman et al., 2016). To reach those high standards, a police officer is expected to have good morals and ethics, and their decisions will be made with integrity. Decisions based on the combination of good principles and values should prevent police misconduct (Hickman et al., 2016). Poor police conduct can lead to expensive lawsuits against the agency (Shusman et al., 1984), and a loss of agency legitimacy in the eyes of the public (Sunshine and Tyler, 2003).

Standards for hiring police officers were nearly nonexistent during the political era of policing (roughly 1830–1900) and remained lax for the first few decades of the twentieth century (Walker, 1977). To improve the police officer selection process, the 1931 Wickersham Commission recommended intelligence testing be included in the hiring process of new police officers (Dantzker, 2011). In 1967, the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration (LEAA) suggested that new officers would face unpleasant demands from supervisors, disrespectful citizens, and potentially dangerous situations (Beutler et al., 1988). The LEAA argued that hiring better officers would minimize potential problems from these occupational challenges. Furthermore, these features of policing led to the President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and the Administration of Justice to recommend that all police applicants complete psychological testing and complete face-to-face interviews to assess the applicant’s emotional stability (1967).

Contemporary police agencies relied on a standard cadre of tests developed in the 1960s (i.e., physical agility, background checks, polygraph, psychological examinations, and face-to-face interviews), which served to weed out applicants who do not possess common American norms and values (Terpstra et al., 2022; Kappeler et al., 1998). Over time, the selection criteria evolved from seeking people with the ability to perform job-related tasks to include performance predictors and unbiased performance standards (e.g., avoid hiring people who might target individuals based on culture, racial, or gender characteristics) (Scrivner, 2006). This can be seen in the recommendations of the President’s Task Force on 21^st Century Policing (2015), which indicated “the critical importance of hiring officers who reflect the communities they serve and also have a high level of procedural justice competency” (p. 16). It is also suggested that policing should market the police occupation to humanize the profession by highlighting community engagement, problem-solving, and service (Schafer and Nelson, 2022).

An important aspect of police applicant screening was to examine a person’s features or background that were considered problematic for policing. White and Kane (2013) suggested that certain “red flags” existed, which if an applicant possessed, would result in someone being a poor fit for policing (Terpstra et al., 2022). A background check would be used to determine if an applicant had any prior criminal behavior, poor work performance, and questionable morality (White and Kane, 2013). Other problematic factors could be uncovered through psychological examinations or interviews (Langworthy et al., 1995). Recently, it has been suggested that “screen-in” procedures be used to supplement the conditions that would screen-out applicants. For example, Terpstra et al. (2022) asked current officers to list the desirable traits characterizing good policing. Integrity, compassion, and honesty were among the top-five good-quality traits, and respondents suggested that police agencies seek applicants with these qualities.

Other screen-in aspects of new officer selection suggested that the process should gauge the service aspects of law enforcement (Schafer and Nelson, 2022). For example, officers who possess a service orientation, balanced against a penchant for law enforcement, can build trust with citizens. These types of officers are better able to problem solve and are open to accountability (Scrivner, 2006). Additionally, Lawrence et al. (2017) used a police-community interaction survey to assess a citizen’s opinions about a recent interaction with a police officer. They found that officers who were seen as having higher levels of empathy and emotional control were viewed better by citizens. The authors suggested that police agencies should seek officers with these qualities as they may improve police—community interactions and agency legitimacy.

To date, of the existing research on law enforcement hiring practices, none explore individual ideologies when assessing an applicant’s potential employment. It is possible that reliance on psychological testing, with the goal of measuring emotional stability, predicting behavior, and preventing abuse (Dantzker, 2011), would be sufficient to uncover potentially problematic ideological thinking. Still, determining if an applicant is suitable for hiring based on an ideological framework could be interpreted as a type of bias, and considered an unfair or illegal factor in the hiring decision (Dantzker, 2011; Scrivner, 2006). Nevertheless, those working in law enforcement value qualities that are important to policing, such as demonstrating bravery, making principled decisions, and showing competence (Herbert, 1998). It is possible that applicants supporting far-left or far-right ideologies would be outside normally acceptable policing qualities; an applicant possessing these attributes could be considered too risky for an agency to hire.

The notion of agency risk has been a concern for currently employed police officers who post to social media sites. The International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) (2019) provided policy guidance for police agencies, including an individual officer’s personal use of social media. The IACP warned that “even if content is posted while personnel are off duty, it can still have detrimental effects” (p. 4) that interfere with the goals of policing. The IACP suggested, for example, that a defense attorney could use social media posts to demonstrate officer bias. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that various public employees, including police officers, have a higher standard of behavior, and their freedom of speech may “lack protection because offensive speech erodes public confidence” (Martinez, 2019: 302). Police agency policies that limit a police officer’s private speech are acceptable if that speech is not “on a matter of public concern” (Abel, 2022: 1210). First Amendment limits for current officers could likely apply during the hiring stage, reducing the risk of employing bias police officers. This can help policing reach the goal of unbiased policing and live up to the social contract between police and citizens, which “depends on fair and neutral enforcement of the laws to protect the whole citizenry against criminal violence and state violence” (Confronting Violent White, 2020: 4).

Far-left and far-right ideologies

Describing a person as holding far-left or far-right ideological views is a political expression that considers activities based on those views to be immoral, or outside the formal or informal norms of the state (Sotlar, 2004; Wintrobe, 2006). There are several generally acknowledged characteristics for left-wing and right-wing beliefs. The left holds liberal values, including empathy toward others and a belief that an individual’s problems are often the result of external forces (Hasson et al., 2018). Liberals believe in government interventions for economic and social equality, and the advancement of policies supporting disadvantages groups (i.e., ethnic, racial, gender, and sexual minorities) (Noel, 2016). As one’s views move further to the left, they are described as believing that economic, social, and other injustices are caused directly by the government and large corporations. A far-left ideology is primarily class-oriented and promoted the overthrow of a capitalist system. Far-left organizations of the 1960s were motivated by racial-based issues, which continue today, and contemporary groups focus on environmental concerns (University of Maryland, 2023).

Noel (2016) described a person with conservative or “right” values as favoring free markets, individual liberty, and religious freedom. Conservatives have less sympathy toward the plight of others and believe in personal responsibility for individual problems (Hasson et al., 2018). Moving further out on the right are people with enhanced anti-socialist ideals and hostile views of liberal democracy (Davies and Lynch, 2002). Information from the University of Maryland National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Response to Terrorism described modern far-right ideologies as social hierarchies that favor a particular group and antipathy toward the federal government. Far-right groups can seek to maintain extreme religious views, racial supremacy, and advocate for militias (University of Maryland, 2023).

While both far-left and far-right groups will use violence to support their goals, their use of violence is not equal. Recent research has found that far-left groups were less likely to use violence to support their positions (Webber et al., 2020), and when violence was used, far-left behaviors were less violent (Jasko et al., 2022). Far-left groups targeted buildings and equipment, where far-right groups confronted people (Holt et al., 2019) and their attacks are more deadly (Jasko et al., 2022). The accuracy of these assessments may be difficulty to verify, as some initially peaceful protests that took place across the U.S. in 2020 were encroached by those intent on using violence (Richer et al., 2020).

Current research

This exploratory study grew out of a survey of police chiefs’ and other upper-level administrators’ views of employing officers with far-left and far-right ideologies. The survey included an open-ended question asking, “Do you have any other thoughts regarding a police agency’s hiring policies with respect to a potential recruit who has a history of supporting far-right or far-left organizations?” This study is a thematic analysis of the responses to this question.

The past few years have seen an expansion of the public’s exposure to both left-wing and right-wing ideological groups through media reports. Terms such as “socialists,” “communists,” and “anti-Capitalists” were linked to the left, and “white supremacists,” “white nationals,” and “militia” were associated with the right. A police officer with a history of supporting ideologies of either the far-left or far-right can be considered a threat to the legitimacy of law enforcement. While the officer, as part of their official capacity, may never act on those ideologies, the mere public perception that an agency employs an officer with far-left or far-right ideological beliefs will likely lead the public to distrust the officer and question the agencies legitimacy. The notion that a police agency would employ officers with far-left or far-right beliefs may surprise some. Yet, a 2006 Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Intelligence Assessment reported that there were police officers who volunteered “their professional resources to white supremacist causes with which they sympathize” (Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2006: 3). Other information provided in 2020 by the Brennen Center for Justice recounts the behavior of some U.S. police officers publicly supporting or joining white extremist organizations (German, n.d.). Since the FBI’s 2006 report, neither the federal nor state or local governments have developed any standards for reviewing police personnel for potential far-left or far-right links (Downs, 2016; Johnson, 2019). Protesting police violence (which is assumed to be far-left behavior), and the event at the U.S. Capitol on January 6^th (which is assumed to be far-right behavior) provided graphic images of what some groups will do. The fact that police officers, while off duty, were involved in the January 6^th event likely caused others within policing to question the acceptance of far-right ideologies in policing.

Methods

The data used in this study were collected using Qualtrics, a computer program that allows for the development and distribution of a survey using an internet link. The decision to utilize Qualtrics was based on ease-of-use and mass distribution of the survey to police agencies across the state. Further, with computer-generated responses, recording errors are minimized, which is important to the accuracy of the analysis. To ensure ethical and compliance guidelines were safeguarded, including protecting the reputation of participating individuals and organizations, institutional review board approval for the current study was granted by the authors’ academic institution.

A retired police chief in the state of New York, who is a member of the New York State Police Chiefs Association, provided an avenue for survey distribution.⁴ The Association agreed to allow the survey to be sent to members, who are typically higher-level police administrators. An email message containing the survey cover letter explaining the goals of the study, and the voluntary and confidential nature of the survey, was sent to Association members; the email contained an embedded hyperlink to the Qualtrics survey. Recipients were asked to complete the survey and forward the link to members of their individual agencies. The survey was open from February 2, 2021, with one “reminder” message sent on February 8, 2021. The intent was to keep the survey open for at least 3 weeks, but by February 11, 2021, the presidential impeachment hearings were heavily televised. The extensive media coverage of the events of January 6^th, in association with the impeachment, likely sparked public reaction that would interfere with objectivity in this research. As Best (2008) suggested, media coverage has important influential properties that can impact public concerns. Therefore, it was believed that any responses provided after the televised presidential impeachment hearings commenced would have threatened the internal validity of the study. As a result, the survey closed on February 11, 2021. A total of 216 respondents opened the survey.

The full survey explored the issue of police applicants with a history of support for far-left or far-right organizations and legitimacy in policing. The survey included demographic items (e.g., gender, years of experience, and agency size), 13 items regarding “audience legitimacy” (Nix et al., 2020), and five items on “self-legitimacy” (Nix and Wolfe, 2017). One of the survey items asked for the respondent’s position within their agency (i.e., chief or upper-level administrator, police supervisor, investigative duties, patrol officer, and other). It was decided that chiefs, upper-level administrators, and supervisors would be most involved in the hiring process, and their views would have the most value in a study of hiring police applicants with a history of supporting far-left or far-right organizations. Thus, remaining respondents were dropped from the analysis, leaving an N of 145. Of these 145 respondents, 63 answered the open-ended question seeking “any other thoughts” regarding hiring an application with a history of supporting far-left or far-right organizations. Sixty-two (98.4%) were male, one “preferred not to say,” and 60 (95.2%) were white. Most respondents had more than 20 years of experience (78.5%), with 20% having between 13 and 20 years of experience, and the remainder having between eight and 12 years on the job. Forty-seven respondents were police chiefs or upper-level administrators (74.6%), and 13 were police supervisors (20.6%).⁵

Coding

As noted above, this is the first research to examine police administrators’ and supervisors’ perceptions on hiring law enforcement candidates who have a history of supporting far-left or far-right organizations. As a result of this academic void, access to prior research to leverage standard coding and themes recognition is nonexistent. Therefore, after the authors independently coded each of the 63 responses, they compared their analysis—inclusive of generated themes.

Thematic analysis was the selected methodological approach for the current study, given two key advantages identified for qualitative studies. First, thematic analysis is instrumental to organizing diverse narratives of respondents, which can tease out commonalities and differences within data (Braun and Clarke, 2006; Clarke and Braun, 2022; Nowell et al., 2017). Experts in qualitative analysis posited that the flexibility to understand stakeholders’ responses is an asset with thematic analysis, especially with robust datasets (Braun and Clarke, 2006; Clarke and Braun, 2022). Second, thematic analysis is a functional method when processing large amounts of data, as it offers the researcher(s) a “well-structured approach to handling data, helping to produce” scholarship that is “clear and organized” (Braun and Clarke, 2006; Clarke and Braun, 2022; Nowell et al., 2017: 2).

Given the responses were derived from an open-ended survey question about hiring, four central themes were identified by both authors: little hesitancy to hire; should not hire; noncommittal; and a fourth we labeled thoughtfulness. For little hesitancy to hire, both authors identified words and phrases in the responses that centered on “rights” of an individual to their personal opinions and supervisors’ belief that officers are capable of being neutral while interacting with citizens. The theme should not hire was pinpointed based on a respondent’s definitive vocabulary, such as “subversive affiliation” and “should be disqualified.” Noncommittal was associated with the responses that stated exactly or synonymously, “it depends” on an applicant’s type of support for a far-right or far-left organization. The last theme, thoughtful, is akin to the noncommittal responses, but respondents were seemingly cautious and not expressly asserting to “hire” or “don’t hire” an applicant who has a history of supporting far-right or far-left organizations. Statements, such as “cases-by-case basis” and “entitled to their opinion” captured responses in this category. Essentially, thoughtful replies provide a bit more depth to what the respondent thinking, and the issue of employing an applicant who supported far-left or far-right groups needed serious consideration.

Findings

Little hesitancy to hire

The first theme included 13 (20.6% of the 63 respondents) respondents indicating minimal reservation to hire a potential recruit who has a history of supporting far-right or far-left organizations. For example, each of the following passages were written by police chiefs with more than 20 years of experience:⁶ “As long as the applicant can remain objective in doing their job and not let their opinions influence their decisions, their personal views should have no impact as to whether or not they should be hired.” Another chief wrote, “I would not make assumptions and use the candidate’s political affiliations to judge whether the candidate was a good hire or not.” Several others provided a specific qualifier associated with their viewpoint. Six different respondents, specifically, mentioned that a person “has a right to their opinion” or political viewpoints. A few others seemed to “hedge” a bit in their acceptance of hiring a person who supported left-wing or right-wing groups. One chief wrote, “As long as the applicant can remain objective in doing their job and not let their opinions influence their decisions, their personal views should have no impact as to whether or not they should be hired.” Another wrote, “While I believe they can believe in what they wish (right or left), I feel it is important to appear neutral and make decisions that are politically unbiased.”

Should not hire

Among the 14 (22.2%) police chiefs and upper-level administrators who indicated this response, some were very straightforward in their views. Four brusquely stated some variation of “the applicant should be disqualified” or “should not be hired.” One chief indicated that if a background check confirmed “subversive affiliations,” the agency should not hire the applicant. Other respondents, while not quite so direct, seriously questioned or doubted the appropriateness of hiring such an applicant: “A person with these views is not a good candidate,” “anyone who is far right or far left should not be empowered as police officer,” “extremist views or [attitudes] should send a red flag on this candidate,” and “extremists do not make good officers.” Finally, one respondent added context to their argument: “I believe they should all be held to a higher standard, right or left. Too far in any direction and there will be a bias toward the other group.”

Noncommittal

Ten (15.9%) responses indicated that there would need to be more details about the applicant’s left-wing or right-wing activity or political attitudes before making a hiring decision. These responses contained a quality of “it depends,” with some brief explanation of their thoughts. One respondent wrote, “more information would have to be known as to the person’s character and potential to be hired.” Another stated, “Anything pertaining to a person ‘who has a history of supporting far-right or far-left organizations’ should be scrutinized and evaluated.” Two other respondents indicated that the interview process would be used to examine the issue further. A chief wrote, “Careful, fact-based review/investigation should be conducted prior to continuing the hiring process.” Two supervisors with more than 20 years on the job wrote, “I think that it should be considered but not be the determining factor” and “It depends on the group and the applicant’s involvement with the group.” A third police supervisor with less than 20 years explained, “I feel you have to question them during the interview process and ask how far they will go with their beliefs compared to their oath.” Another supervisor, with less than 20 years of experience wrote, “In today’s climate everyone has some sort of political opinion, one way or the other. To deny a person the opportunity to work because their persuasion differs from yours is a very slippery slope.”

Thoughtfulness

Fifteen (23.8%) responses accounted for this theme. The respondents’ written statements, while cautious and not expressly asserting “hire” or “don’t hire” an applicant who has a history of supporting far-right or far-left organizations, provide additional context or depth to their answers. One chief wrote, “Everyone is entitled to their opinion. When their behavior becomes criminal, then it impacts their ability to perform as a police officer in an impartial manner. Those candidates should probably consider a different employment.” Another stated, “Given the prevalence of social media today in broadcasting one’s views and opinions and the ability to reach a widespread audience, candidates who choose to openly express an affiliation with fringe groups on the right or left should at a minimum be scrutinized as to how those openly expressed affiliations may affect their job performance.” The issue of how an applicant’s beliefs might impact their job performance was also in these thoughtful responses. One supervisor with 13–20 years of experience wrote, “I believe that any individual should have an opportunity to explain their position if they have some far (either side) opinion support. It very likely may be a disqualifying factor if they cannot see beyond those beliefs and opinions where it could impair their ability to enforce laws which have been passed by legislation.” Another chief administrator stated, “Would have to judge it on a case-by-case basis, as police officers we are supposed to enforce the laws in place. Having a right-wing or left-wing agenda could cause problems with taking orders if the individual person has a problem with what’s being carried out.” A few other respondents specifically mentioned the issue of how left-wing or right-wing officers might perform in some communities. For example, “Hiring a person with this background could have negative effects when this person is dealing with the minority community, especially in our current social environment.” Finally, “This country was founded on rights of the people with one being freedom of speech for everyone. However, potential candidates should not be supporting any far-right or far-left organizations in public or in social media despite their personal beliefs. They need to be neutral and treat everyone fairly with respect. They also need to realize that they not only will be representing the agency but the profession as well as the community they will be serving.”

It is noted here that the remaining written 11 (17.4%) responses were considered “non-responses.” That is, they did not address the survey question. Therefore, they are not part of the central analysis. Still, rather than removing them from the study, it was decided to include them in this section, as these participants indicated that further detailing of the question would be necessary to clarify their responses. A few chiefs questioned the survey itself, and some indicated there should be more specific information regarding names or behaviors of any left-wing or right-wing organizations. One respondent indicated “polygraph the applicant,” and another suggested that left-wing and right-wing beliefs are not treated equally. These responses do not contribute to a clear understanding of what the chiefs and upper-level administrators are thinking, with respect to hiring an applicant who supports left-wing or right-wing views. Still, it is argued here that if further research utilizes face-to-face interviews, these answers would warrant further amplification as to the respondent’s thinking.

Discussion

This study explored the views of police chiefs and upper-level administrators in New York State, regarding their views on hiring an applicant who has a history of support for far-left or far-right organizations. With respect to prior research, other than comments or articles in law reviews journals (Covey, 2013; Johnson, 2017, 2019; Ward, 2018), we were unable to locate any empirical scholarship exploring this issue. Thus, this study provides a preliminary understanding of this issue and its association within police hiring. This topic is particularly relevant considering the event at the U.S. Capitol on January 6^th. Currently, police agencies across the country are having to primarily deal with officers who associate with far-right groups (German, n.d.). Employing officers holding far-left or far-right beliefs may suffer a threat to the agency’s legitimacy (Bottoms and Tankebe, 2012; Tankebe, 2010). It may be irrelevant as to whether an officer acts on those views. Employing officers who show support for far-left or far-right ideologies, an occupation that demands an appearance of neutral, fair, and even-handed treatment, can create the perception that a street-level officer’s decisions can be biased. The results of the survey of police chiefs and upper-level administrators in New York State provided a spectrum of viewpoints to help understand this issue as it applies to hiring a new officer.

Some respondents indicated they would accept an applicant who had a history of supporting far-left or far-right organizations. Those chiefs and upper-level administrators who were not concerned about this issue indicated that objective behavior was the essential standard for judging an officer. Other respondents mentioned “political affiliations” and “political opinions” as not being part of a hiring decision. These respondents did not view a history of supporting far-left or far-right organizations as a “red flag” (White and Kane, 2013) or an indicator of someone being a “bad cop” (Terpstra et al., 2022). A nearly equal number of respondents held opposing views, indicating that support for far-left or far-right views as unacceptable in policing. One chief specifically used the phrase “red flag” with respect to an applicant supporting these ideological views. Other respondents who would not hire such applicants used the words “subversive” or “extremist” in their written responses.

This research has important implications for police administrators. First, if police agencies hire new officers (or continue to employ existing officers) who carry views supporting far-left or far-right organizations, it will be difficult for the community to trust the police agency itself or the officers who respond to a call for service. “Social memories animate contemporary police-community relations,” (Ward, 2018: 178) and the history of racial injustice will be recalled by some citizens when they know a police agency is not concerned about the views of the officers they employ.

Another implication of this research deals with the potential for pernicious harm to policing itself. It is argued that for several decades, extremists have infiltrated the nation’s law enforcement agencies (Speri, 2017). The goals of extremists working inside police agencies include tolerance of racism, sabotaging investigations, and possibly harming people considered targets of the group (Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2006). Our study found that one in five respondents had little hesitancy to hire an applicant showing support for far-left or far-right organizations. Discounting the potential problems with employing officers who support far-left or far-right organizations will allow these groups to achieve their goals.

There is the practical problem of officer credibility. Some support for far-left or far-right organizations can call into question not just an officer’s behavior on the street (Covey, 2013), but potentially their testimony in court. It is plausible that evidence of an officer’s support for far-left or far-right organizations will be used by defense attorneys to undermine the credibility of an officer. Already, prosecutors have declined to bring to court some offenders because the word of the arresting officer is not trustworthy (Johnson, 2017). In St. Louis, Missouri, 22 officers were barred from testifying in court based on their personal Facebook posts (Calvert, 2019). Johnson (2019) has suggested that in the future prosecutors may be required to disclose police officer bias because that information would be beneficial to the defense.

These findings provide a reference for policy discussions. First, with respect to hiring policy, reviewing social media sites is already being used in policing (Goldsmith, 2015). In a survey of Arkansas sheriff offices, for instance, 44% indicated support for using social media for vetting or background check purposes (Beshears, 2017). If social media reviews are to be used as part of an applicant’s background check, the current study indicates that the range of viewpoints of police chiefs and upper-level administrators regarding hiring a person showing a history of support for far-left or far-right organizations is subjective. If that is the case, using social media information to make a hiring decision may need to be codified into a formal objective policy to avoid legal ramifications for arbitrary hiring decisions. Conducting an interview “to determine emotional stability” (The President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and the Administration of Justice, 1967: 129), which might include an assessment of an applicant’s ideological viewpoints, may not be sufficient for making a hiring decision in the 21^st century. Assessing the contents of an applicant’s social media could provide signals that need to be examined further before a hiring decision is made (Hilal et al., 2017).

An additional policy-related issue is whether social media posts showing specific support for far-left or far-right groups might serve as a credible “red flag” to identify a poor-quality officer (White and Kane, 2013; Terpstra et al., 2022), or if these types of posts should trigger a more intense background investigation. If U.S. police leaders have diverse opinions regarding the impact of social media posts on their opinion of applicants, a policy should exist explaining how social media examinations might be used to justify additional questions of the applicant. The IACP has already developed policy recommendations for how agencies and officers utilize social media. Police leadership associations (e.g., the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the Police Executive Research Forum, and the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives) may have a role in developing model policies regarding the specific political ideologies that would be avoided when hiring new officers. Membership in some far-left or far-right organizations may be easy to classify as unacceptable for hiring as a police officer. For example, the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives offered legislation that states, “White supremacists and other far-right-wing extremists are the most significant domestic terrorism threat facing the United States” (S. 894 and H.R. 5602, respectively). A model policy can help identify which ideologies are unacceptable in policing, or if it is an issue of “intensity of belief” in that ideology that is important.

This study also has its own limitations. The study’s convenience sample from one U.S. state limits the findings. First, the respondents are not representative of the population of New York state chiefs or officers, and study results cannot be generalized beyond New York State.⁷ The state has roughly 500 different police agencies and employs approximately 66,000 officers (Reaves, 2008). Thus, it is difficult to determine the response rate, and the small response size is less than desired. Still, policing research has shown enormous variations in response rates, and a low response rate rarely influenced data quality (Nix et al. 2019). Second, the short period the survey was open likely impacted the response rate. As explained above, the survey closed earlier than expected due to media coverage of the presidential impeachment. Finally, there may also be selection bias in responses. The absence of female respondents, those who “preferred not to respond,” and the large number of white respondents limits the interpretability of the opinions. It is possible that non-white respondents may possess stronger views with respect to hiring an applicant with right-wing ideologies. Further, the survey was unable to capture if a respondent served in a rural, suburban, or urban environment.

Conclusions

This study is a preliminary exploration of the thoughts of police chiefs and upper-level administrators in one U.S. state regarding the possible hiring of applicants who may have a history of supporting far-left or far-right organizations. It appears to be the first study to examine the issue of hiring applicants who may support far-left or far-right organizations. Employing officers with far-left or far-right affiliations can threaten police agency legitimacy even if these officers never engage in illegal behavior. This study found diversity in the views of police leaders with respect to hiring applicants with a history of supporting far-left and far-right organizations. Some respondents felt the issue is not important to the hiring decision, while others clearly articulated that a history of support for far-left or far-right organizations was unacceptable, and these applicants should not be hired. Roughly 40% of the respondents can be described as cautious when thinking about this issue. Based on these results we conclude that the issue of hiring applicants with a history of supporting far-left and far-right organizations is an open question in policing among their leadership.

With respect to future research, some responses indicated that a specific example of far-left or far-right groups might be important to their hiring decisions. Research could include interviews of police chiefs and high-level administrators who are commonly involved in selecting new police officers. Interviews can garner more depth regarding the themes and nuances by providing clarifying examples of “support” to better capture desired qualities in a candidate. Some police administrators may have different interpretations of “a history of support.” Participating in meetings or rallies, sending money, or positive social media posts may indicate “support.” Still, much like prior drug use has “contextual exceptions” in the hiring decision (Bottema and Telep, 2021: 121), the notion of “support” for some groups will need to be disaggregated to better understand this concept. With respect to context, future research should strive to include a more diverse population of police respondents (e.g., states with different political leanings, rural and urban locations, and minority chiefs and administrators) to explore their views of hiring people with a history of support for far-left or far-right organizations.

Similarly, future scholars might consider constructing surveys possessing theoretical frameworks built into questions. This mindful research practice among theorists would be helpful with delving deeper into the understanding of chiefs or upper-level administrators’ hiring practices. The theories would provide central themes that could be instrumental to analysis of the data. Two recent studies might be a consideration for future scholars. First, Blazak’s (2022) study on the rise of hate group utilized Emile Durkheim’s anomie to assess the social problem. Second, Forberg’s (2022) research applied “fringe effect” theory, which explained how social media platforms spread conspiracy ideologies that lead to fear and anger.

Interviews with respondents who make hiring decisions could also determine if employing officers with far-left or far-right views may be associated with potential threats to the legitimacy of a police agency. Follow-up questions could explore issues that the police administrators have not yet considered, such as problems related to police-community relations or threats to offender prosecution. Overall, while political perspectives may be a personal issue for officers and those who apply for police employment, the public or other facets of the criminal justice community may not agree. Police agencies must consider this fact as they move forward.

Footnotes

Acknowledgment

The author would like to thank Chief Larry Eggert (Ret.) for his assistance in survey distribution.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Scott W Phillips

S Marlon Gayadeen

Notes

References

Abel

(2022) Cop-“like” (“ “): the First Amendment, criminal procedure, and the regulation of police social media speech. Stanford Law Review, 74(6): 1199–1282.

Balch

(1972) The police personality: fact or fiction? The Journal of Criminal law, Criminology, and Police Science 63(1): 106–119.

Beshears

(2017) Effectiveness of police social media use. American Journal of Criminal Justice 42(3): 489–501.

Best

(2008) Social Problems. New York: W.W. Norton and Company.

Beutler

Nussbaum

Meredith

(1988) Changing personality patterns of police officers. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice 19(5): 503–507.

Blazak

(2022) Revisiting the white boys from Portland to Ukraine: Anomie and right-wing extremism. The American Behavioral Scientist. doi: 10.1177/00027642221108940.

Bottema

Telep

(2021) Examining views of police chiefs and college students regarding drug disqualifiers for the hiring of police officers in Arizona. Journal of Drug Issues 51(1): 109–127.

Bottoms

Tankebe

(2012) Beyond procedural justice: a dialogic approach to legitimacy in criminal justice. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 102: 119–170.

Braun

Clarke

(2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology 3(2): 77–101.

10.

Caldero

Crank

(2010) Police Ethics: The Corruption of Noble Cause. Burlington, MA: Anderson.

11.

Calvert

(2019) Philadelphia takes officers off street over racist social-media posts. The Wall Street Journal. https://www.wsj.com/articles/philadelphia-takes-officers-off-street-over-racist-social-media-posts-11561060532

12.

Chwast

(1965) Value conflicts in law enforcement. Crime & Delinquency 11(2): 151–161.

13.

Clarke

Braun

(2022) Thematic Analysis: A Practical Guide. London: Sage Publications.

14.

Cochrane

Tett

Vandecreek

(2003) Psychological testing and the selection of police officers: a national survey. Criminal Justice and Behavior 30(5): 511–537.

15.

Confronting Violent White

Supremacy.

(2020) (part IV): White supremacy in blue – the infiltration of local police departments. U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Reform, 116th Congress, Second Session, 29 September, 2020, Washington, DC. https://www.congress.gov/event/116th-congress/house-event/LC65641/text?s=1&r=1

16.

Covey

(2013) Police misconduct as a cause of wrongful convictions. Washington University Law Review 90: 1133–1189.

17.

Dantzker

(2011) Psychological preemployment screening for police candidates: seeking consistency if not standardization. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice 42(3): 276–283.

18.

Davies

Lynch

(2002) The Routledge Companion to Fascism and the Far Right. London: Routledge.

19.

Downs

(2016) FBI warned of white supremacists in law enforcement 10 years ago Has anything changed? PBS News Hour. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/fbi-white-supremacists-in-law-enforcement

20.

Federal Bureau of Investigation

White Supremacist Infiltration of Law Enforcement. 17 October, 2006.

21.

Fielding

(1987) A study of resignation during British police training. Journal of Police Science and Administration 15(1): 24–36.

22.

Forberg

(2022) From the fringe to the fore: an algorithmic ethnography of the far-right conspiracy theory group QAnon. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 51(3): 291–317.

23.

German

(n.d.) Hidden in Plain Sight: Racism, White Supremacy, and Far-Right Militancy in Law Enforcement. 27 August, 2020. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/hidden-plain-sight-racism-white-supremacy-and-far-right-militancy-law

24.

Goldsmith

(2015) Disgracebook policing: social media and the rise of police indiscretion. Policing and Society 25(3): 249–267.

25.

Hasson

Tamir

Brahms

, et al. (2018) Are liberals and conservatives equally motivated to feel empathy toward others? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 44(10): 1449–1459.

26.

Herbert

(1998) Police subculture reconsidered. Criminology 36(2): 343–370.

27.

Hickman

Powell

Piquero

, et al. (2016) Exploring the viability of attitudes toward ethical behavior scale in understanding police integrity outcomes. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management 39(2): 319–337.

28.

Hilal

Densley

Jones

(2017) A signaling theory of law enforcement hiring. Policing and Society 27(5): 508–524.

29.

Holt

Stonhouse

Freilich

, et al. (2019) Examining ideologically motivated cyberattacks performed by far-left groups. Terrorism and Political Violence 33: 1–22. DOI: 10.1080/09546553.2018.1551213.

30.

House of Representatives Bill 5602. 22 September, 2020.

31.

International Association of Chiefs of Police (2019) Concepts and Issues Paper; Social Media. Alexandria, VA: IACP. Available at https://www.theiacp.org/sites/default/files/2019-05/SocialMediaPaper-2019.pdf

32.

Jasko

LaFree

Piazza

, et al. (2022) A comparison of political violence by left-wing, right-wing, and Islamist extremists in the United States and the world. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 119(30): e2122593119.

33.

Johnson

(2017) Bias in blue: instructing jurors to consider the testimony of police officer witnesses with caution. Pepperdine Law Review 44: 245–304.

34.

Johnson

(2019) KKK in the PD: white supremacist police and what to do about it. Lewis & Clark Law Review 23: 205–262.

35.

Kappeler

Sluder

Alpert

(1998) Forces of Deviance: Understanding the Dark Side of Policing. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press.

36.

Langworthy

Hughes

Sanders

(1995) Law Enforcement Recruitment, Selection, and Training: A Survey of Major Police Department in the U.S. Highland. Heights, KY: Academy of Criminal Justice Science.

37.

Lawrence

Christoff

Escamilla

(2017) Predicting procedural justice behavior: examining communication and personality. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management 40(1): 141–154.

38.

Martinez

(2019) The right to be an asshole: the need for increased First Amendment public employment protections in the age of social media. Journal of Gender, Social Policy & the Law 27(2): 285–312.

39.

Nix

Wolfe

(2017) The impact of negative publicity on police self-legitimacy. Justice Quarterly 34(1): 84–108.

40.

Nix

Pickett

Baek

, et al. (2019) Police research, officer surveys, and response rates. Policing and Society 29(5): 530–550.

41.

Nix

Pickett

Wolfe

(2020) Testing a theoretical model of perceived audience legitimacy: the neglected linkage in the dialogic model of police-community relations. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 57(2): 217–259.

42.

Noel

(2016) Ideological factions in the republican and democratic parties. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 667(1): 166–188.

43.

Nowell

Norris

White

, et al. (2017) Thematic analysis: striving to meet the trustworthiness criteria. International Journal of Qualitative Methods 16(1): 1609406917733847.

44.

Reaves

(2008) Census of State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies, 2008 (NCJ# 233982). Washington (DC): Bureau of Justice Statistics.

45.

Richer

Long

Balsamo

(2020, October 20) AP Finds Most Arrested In Protests Aren’t Leftist Radicals. 20 October, 2020.

46.

Schafer

Nelson

(2022) Recruitment And Retention in US Policing: Rethinking “Business as Usual”. CNA Corporation. Available at: https://www.cna.org/reports/2022/09/recruitment-and-retention-in-us-policing.

47.

Scrivner

(2006) Innovations in Recruitment and Hiring: Hiring in the Spirit of Service. Washington, DC: Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, U.S. Department of Justice.

48.

Senate Bill 894. 27 March, 2019.

49.

Shusman

Inwald

Landa

(1984) Correction officer job performance as predicted by the IPI and MMPI. Criminal Justice and Behavior 11: 309–329.

50.

Sotlar

(2004) Some problems with a definition and perception of extremism within a society.accessed 16 April 2023. https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/Mesko/208033.pdf

51.

Speri

(2017) The FBI Has Quietly Investigated White Supremacist Infiltration of Law Enforcement. The Intercept, January 31. accessed May 29, 2023. https://theintercept.com/2017/01/31/the-fbihas-quietly-investigated-white-supremacist-infiltration-of-law-enforcement/

52.

Sunshine

Tyler

(2003) The role of procedural justice and legitimacy in shaping public support for policing. Law & Society Review 37: 513–548.

53.

Tankebe

(2010) Public confidence in the police: testing the effects of public experiences of police corruption in Ghana. British Journal of Criminology 50(2): 296–319.

54.

Terpstra

White

Fradella

(2022) Finding good cops: the foundations of a screen-in (not out) hiring process for police. Policing: International Journal. Epub ahead of print 27 May 2022). DOI: 10.1108/PIJPSM-08-2021-0116.

55.

The President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and the Administration of Justice (1967) Task Force Report: The Police. Washington, DC: U.S. GPO.

56.

University of Maryland (2023) START FAQ. https://www.start.umd.edu/pirus-frequently-asked-questions#q7

57.

USA Today (3 May, 2021) https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2022/05/03/police-charged-jan-6-assault-obstructing-congress/7355516001/?gnt-cfr=1. accessed 11 April, 2023.

58.

Walker

(1977) A Critical History of Police Reform. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

59.

Ward

(2018) Living histories of white supremacist policing: towards transformative justice. Du Bois Review: Social Science Research on Race 15(1): 167–184.

60.

Webber

Kruglanski A Molinario

Jasko

(2020) Ideologies that justify political violence. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences 34: 107–111.

61.

White

Kane

(2013) Pathways to career-ending police misconduct: An examination of patterns, timing, and organizational responses to officer malfeasance in the NYPD. Criminal Justice and Behavior 40(11): 1301–1325.

62.

Wintrobe

(2006) Extremism, suicide terror, and authoritarianism. Public Choice 128: 169–195.

63.

Woods

Blackmon

(2021) Police officer political identity and their opinions of public protests. Journal of Criminal Justice and Law 5(1): 40–55.