Typically, we look at lawmakers and the laws they pass to understand race and racism in the Capitol. This expansive literature provides invaluable insight into how lawmakers’ racial identities shape representation and deliberation (Fenno Reference Fenno2003; Grose Reference Grose2011; Minta Reference Minta2011); social interactions and the formation of informal groups among them (Hawkesworth Reference Hawkesworth2003; Tyson Reference Tyson2016); and the creation of public policy. These scholarly works have an outward look that investigates how lawmakers use their power to shape the racial world outside of Capitol Hill. However, in my research, I studied congressional staff to understand how racism unfolds within the halls of the Capitol. My current book project, The Last Plantation, investigates racial inequality in the congressional workplace by analyzing the career experiences of Black congressional staffers. The title draws on the fact that members of Congress and their staff applied this telling nickname to the legislature to highlight how the institution is exempt from the very policies and principles it is tasked to create and implement (including federal workplace laws).

Congressional staff are known as the invisible force in American lawmaking (Fox and Hammond Reference Fox and Hammond1977). They provide critical advice, guidance, and analysis to members of Congress and, without them, much legislative work could not be done. The invisibility of congressional staff also hides deep-seated inequality within the congressional workplace. White staffers are overrepresented in top staff positions in the House (Scott et al. Reference Scott, McCray, Bell and Overton2018) and Senate (Jones Reference Jones2015), and they dominate even entry-level positions such as internships (Jones Reference Jones2020; Jones, Win, and Vera Reference Jones, Win and Vera2021). Moreover, staffers of color primarily work in the offices of the Black, Latino, and Asian lawmakers. Racial stratification and segregation in the congressional workplace in which staffers of color are missing from top staff positions in the offices of white lawmakers and overwhelmingly concentrated in those of color demonstrates a clear and persistent racial hierarchy. These racial dynamics demonstrate how Congress and its workplace is a racialized governing institution.

I use sociological literature on racism and organizations to explain how racism functions in the congressional workplace. Sociologist Victor Ray (Reference Ray2019) argues that racialized organizations (1) enhance or diminish the agency of racial groups; (2) legitimate the unequal distribution of resources; (3) credential whiteness; and (4) decouple formal rules from on-the-ground organizational practices. Congress embodies all of these criteria as a workplace and governing institution. The implication of this racialized system is the production of legislative inequality, a term I use to describe the unequal distribution of resources and rewards among workers, which influences the creation of public policy and the organization of the American political system. Following is a description of how Congress functions as a racialized governing institution and produces inequality on and off Capitol Hill.

First, racial inequality in the congressional workplace enhances the agency of white staffers to participate in areas of policy making, oversight, and representation—and, similarly, constrains the agency of staffers of color to do the same. I interviewed more than 75 congressional staffers about their job. These data revealed that staffers not only support lawmakers’ political enterprises but also guide their political and policy agendas. Senior staff have considerable influence and power, especially in areas in which a lawmaker’s agenda is uncrystallized and malleable. Black staffers I interviewed described how they used their position to facilitate inclusive policy making, advocating for communities of color in their district that otherwise might be overlooked and for anti-racist policy solutions in lawmaking. In contrast, in interviews with white staffers, they provided race-neutral job descriptions and rarely discussed communities of color or systemic racism. The underrepresentation of Black staffers and other staffers of color in top staff positions diminishes inclusive policy making in the same way that we have come to understand why descriptive representation among elected officials is important.

Second, racial inequality among congressional staff is legitimated by lawmakers practicing the old adage “Do as I say and not as I do” in the management of the congressional workplace. This is most evident in how lawmakers exempted the congressional workplace from the federal workplace law. They argued that Executive Branch agencies, which enforce these provisions, would encroach on legislative prerogatives, thereby constituting a breach in the separation of powers between two co-equal branches of government (Jones Reference Jones and Wooten2019). Although Congress applied several federal workplace provisions to itself in the 1995 Congressional Accountability Act, it did not mandate the collection of demographic data about its employees (even though it compels almost all other employers to collect this information). These data are extremely important for scholarly research that investigates and documents lingering racial and gender inequality in American workplaces. However, without these data for the congressional workplace, it is difficult to know who works on Capitol Hill—much less hold Congress accountable for diverse hiring practices.

In 2019, I surveyed more than 100 congressional offices about the interns they hired; more than a third refused to participate, stating that “it was against office policy.” Congressional offices operate under the assumption that personnel decisions are private and not relevant for public knowledge. However, these types of management decisions are problematic for five key reasons. First, although staffers work for lawmakers, engendering a typical employee–employer relationship, it is more fitting to say that staffers help lawmakers do their job. The latter perspective more accurately describes how staffers actively participate in important legislative functions such as representation, deliberation, negotiation, and oversight. Second, these jobs are a form of citizenship because lawmakers often prioritize hiring professionals from their own district.

Third, legislative jobs are representations of political power because staff have incredible influence over the creation of public policy during and after their congressional employment. We should consider congressional employment comparable to other types of government employment, similarly asking who obtains these positions and whether they are distributed equitably. Lawmakers’ refusal to collect these data and not participate in demographic surveys is problematic and prevents government accountability.

Fourth, the more insidious consequence to this racial arrangement is that congressional employment is an important credential that allows former Hill staffers access to even more influential political and policy-making roles in Washington and beyond. For example, congressional staffers routinely go from Capitol Hill to work in the White House and other Executive Branch offices, the lobbying and consultancy industry on K Street, and the leading think tanks and policy institutes. In addition, congressional employment provides a pipeline to elective office on local, state, and federal levels. To this end, whiteness that is cultivated on Capitol Hill is reproduced throughout the American political system. The recruitment and cultivation of predominantly white political talent in Congress, which then is credentialed and promoted to work in other elite political workplaces, exemplifies Mills’ (Reference Mills1997) argument that we should conceive of white supremacy as a political system.

Fifth, accounting for the ways Congress and its workplace are racialized demonstrates how formal rules often are decoupled from on-the-ground practices. This is most evident in how congressional staffers are hired. Formal rules require congressional offices to post official job announcements for vacancies and to forbid racial and gender discrimination. However, the actual hiring process is quite different. Members of Congress aim to hire someone that they can trust, and often this means a job candidate must have a proven work record or someone who can vouch for them. Although senior staffers are required to post job announcements, real hiring is done through social networks. For instance, it is more likely that these staffers have shared the job announcements with their close associates and established a small pool of competitive applicants before the announcement is made public. What happens as a result is that this insular process facilitates “opportunity hoarding” for white staffers in the congressional workplace, effectively shutting out staffers of color from meaningful opportunities simply for not knowing the right people. Hiring is only one example of racialized decoupling in Congress and, as Hawkesworth (Reference Hawkesworth2003) demonstrated, racialized decoupling affects the career and daily experiences of members of Congress as well.

Amid a moment of racial reckoning, it is important to study the inner workings of Congress as a racialized governing institution. There is considerable attention given to how Congress will respond to unprecedented protests against police brutality and systemic racism. However, there has been little focus on racial inequality within Congress itself and the far-reaching consequences of racial stratification among congressional staff. In the moment, legislative scholars can play a pivotal role by holding Congress and other legislatures accountable for legislative inequality.