Maybe it is because governmental agencies are more concerned with political goals than agency goals?
For example, perhaps appointing a director of the Secret Service because of her gender somehow undercuts the goal of protecting the president.
In case you missed this story - which would be quite easy in light of the media blackout - here is this:
//Ms. Pierson’s support in the West Wing began crumbling late Tuesday, in large part because she did not tell the White House of a security failure in Atlanta last month when an armed man was allowed to ride in an elevator with President Obama at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.//
//For Ms. Pierson, the resignation ended a tumultuous two weeks that started when Omar J. Gonzalez, 42, an Iraq war veteran, evaded capture as he jumped the White House fence, ran across the North Lawn, barged through the unlocked door of the North Portico and knocked down an agent as he sprinted through the Entrance Hall to the Cross Hall to the East Room, the site of presidential news conferences and other formal events.//
Notice the "knocked down an agent" part buried in that paragraph? Anyone curious about that and why is it buried? Well, you might guess at the answer, which is provided in another deeply buried graph by CBS:
//He was confronted by a female Secret Service agent, who he overpowered....//
Anyone interested in the "knocked down an agent" or that it involved overpowering a female Secret Service agent?
Doesn't fit the agency's mission.
According to Althouse:
//It's as if they thought having a female director would fix — image-fix — their women-related problems. There's more to the Secret Service than just making it seem as if someone is stopping them from whoring. Did she even succeed at that? Or were we just supposed to feel better about it?//