Get Schooled

By Jeff

February 6, 2007 11:20 AM | Link to this

I’m torn on this one. The Jeffersonian Republican in me rejects background checks outright. On the other hand, I can see the need to at least be aware of MAJOR transgressions (rape and murder are about the only two things I put in there). But even then, as a man with a “less than stellar” background- though much of it is NOT documented - I would say that a man can change.

By thomas

February 6, 2007 11:37 AM | Link to this

This is just another phase of the paranoia that has swept our country. We are well on the road to Big Brother. The day when the totality of 1984 is complete will take some time, but it will come.

Sad part about it— the people of America are so asleep, they can’t see it coming. If you told them, they wouldn’t listen. But the most horrifying thing— THEY DON’T EVEN CARE.

Class- Your words for today are newspeak, teleview, and doublethink. The quiz will be on Friday.

By Hunter

February 6, 2007 11:50 AM | Link to this

While I typically disagree with background checks on general principle; I have to say that for educators - it is important to know key factors about their past and personality. However; the scope should be limited to crimes of violence or sexual perversion and should not be a sole determining factor of employment.

By Penguinmom

February 6, 2007 12:45 PM | Link to this

As a parent, I’m surprised that professors don’t already have to pass background checks. These men (and women) are often in authority over teenagers. I’d certainly want to know if there’s a sexual predator teaching my daughter.

While I don’t think every mark on your record should disqualify you for a teaching job, there are certainly some things that should disqualify you from having any position of authority or influence over young adults.

Yes, this means that someone has to decide what the things are that disqualify you but that’s why we live in a free country. If someone has a problem with the requirements here in Georgia, they can go try to teach in another state.

By Fall Line

February 6, 2007 12:56 PM | Link to this

I think that anyone who comes in contact with young and impressionable students should have a background check. There have been a lot of professors who have “nailed” their students and left them scared for life. If nothing else, it will help protect the schools and the taxpaying public from litigation.

By JustMe

February 6, 2007 12:58 PM | Link to this

Another thing to consider…. adding background checks of this magnitude would most certainly mean a whole new department in every college. This means more cost resulting in higher tuition.

Do we really want this? I don’t think so!!

By jim d

February 6, 2007 01:05 PM | Link to this

In todays market place, many occupations in sesitive areas require background checks. If the profs. don’t approve perhaps they should seek other employment.

Background checks are often done for gov. employment, try getting a job at a port today or even driving a gasoline transport truck without a background check. It ain’t gonna happen.

Background checks can turn up a lot, most companies will ignore minor infractions unless they see a pattern. Convicted Felons need not apply.

I have no problem with expecting ALL TEACHERS to submit to having one done.

By Jeff

February 6, 2007 01:06 PM | Link to this

Penguin and Fall:

A person 18 years of age is considered an adult in this country, and therefore any “relationships” between a professor and a college student is between two consenting adults. The government has ZERO right to interfere.

Penguin:

Who appointed you god? What gives you (or anyone else) the right to say “well, this person did x 30 years ago and therefore cannot be a professor”?

I say that a) if it was bad enough to have a legal consequence and said consequence has been completed, the issue is settled and b) if it was NOT bad enough to have a legal consequence, then it never mattered in the first place and is settled.

By jim d

February 6, 2007 01:13 PM | Link to this

Just me,

Not another department. This could be handled by HR in conjunction with the campus police dept.

Many of my customers have instituted background checks for anyone entering their property, and due to the nature of their business it is accomplished by the local police department in cooperation with homeland security. I think they’re charging about $40 for a background check. Work permits are being issued to gain free enterance into our nations ports, these include a secuity background check that is done by the local port authorities at a cost of about $50.

I don’t know about you, but that sounds like some pretty cheap insurance to me to assure the students safety.

By high school teacher

February 6, 2007 01:30 PM | Link to this

“How many professors of poetry would you be worried about running a background check on?”

Well… for starters, you might find some possession of illegal substances charges! How else can they understand all those obscure poetic lines? :)

Anyone who works for the government should be subjected to a background check, IMHO.

By jim d

February 6, 2007 01:30 PM | Link to this

“How many professors of poetry would you be worried about running a background check on?”

Would that be the stereotypical poetry prfessors that we’re talking about?

By jct

February 6, 2007 01:36 PM | Link to this

This is so overblown by the media. All State of Georgia employees have to have a background check upon employment. The exception was the universities. Employees at USG institutions are STATE employees.

HR can conduct the checks. There is reasonableness used. Normally, you are looking at the past 7 years for felonious activity. So if you have a DUI from 1980 and your position does not involve driving than HR would not hold this against you.

I worked at a state agency in HR and I was not privy to the background check results. In fact, only two people in the agency could see the results. All I received was okay or not okay to hire. 97% I received an okay to hire. I knew if I was told that I could not hire someone it was for a real good reason.

With negligent hire cases on the rise against employers for not doing everything that they can to find out if the person they are hiring is not violent, etc., I am all for background checks.

By Al

February 6, 2007 01:38 PM | Link to this

If a professor doesn’t pass a background check; they can always go into business conducting background checks. It seems to be a very lucrative business these days.

Then, they need not worry since no one is checking the background, of the person checking the background, of the person whose background is being checked.

By Penguinmom

February 6, 2007 01:46 PM | Link to this

I don’t think I’ll be the one they ask about who to hire or not.

Most universities have a policy prohibiting relationships between professors and students even if they are ‘legal’. As recent research has shown the brain doesn’t mature until around 25 so 18-yr-olds may be legally adults but they are not truly mature. Parents, who are footing the bill, have the right to expect the university to protect their students from people who could be potentially dangerous.

I don’t think anyone is suggesting that we only hire professors with absolutely spotless records. This would preclude anyone who had been arrested for a non-violent protest or who had a youthful indiscretion. I think it is prudent however to do some sort of check to make sure the person being hired will not harm innocent people or open the university up for any liability.

As far as the ‘legal consequence’ thought, this may be fine for some things but for sexual offenses, the preponderance of the evidence suggests that even after punishment sexual offenders are likely to commit another act. I don’t really think it is smart to place someone who has previously had a conviction of a predatory sexual nature amongst such an open field of potential victims. This would also be true of someone convicted of selling (not just possessing) drugs since that would again be too high a temptation and would cause such potential harm to the potential victims at the university.

Again, I think there will still be some places that will hire a professor no matter what his background. So, if someone fails to get a job here, it doesn’t mean they will not be able to work somewhere else.

By Jables

February 6, 2007 01:56 PM | Link to this

To whomever said: “I think all people who come into contact with young and impressionable children should have a background check,” I think we should background check parents. If their backgrounds don’t measure up, take away the child or abort the unborn child. This is, of course in line with your ridiculous thinking. While we’re at it, let’s keep people without educations from having kids. Oh, and people with bad credit because they surely cannot care for children. And let’s get rid of people with funny shaped noses—that bugs me. Oooh, ooh, and people with straight hair. Wait does this sound vaguely familiar to anyone else? What the….? Trust me on this one, since I teach at a local university, the things parents do to their children are far worse than what any professor might do. How many PhDs to you know with criminal records? Yet, you’d subject everyone to the same “testing”? Sounds like eugenics to me, but I MUST be liberal because I’m a professor, right? WRONG. What ever happened to letting people live their lives without government interference? We are on the border of prosecuting thought-crimes here. You people amaze me.

By dawgbees

February 6, 2007 02:02 PM | Link to this

Interesting. I’m a state university employee and I remember having a criminal background check prior to my hiring. I’m not a faculty member, just a staff person with somewhat limited contact with students.

In response to Hudson’s question, I think that a thorough check of academic credentials is more important but yes, we should also know if violent former criminals or sex offenders are applying to teach in our colleges and universities. That said I don’t want to see someone tripped up over a lesser crimes as government entities tend to see things in black and white.

Also, don’t forget that criminal background checks will only uncover crimes for which a person has been convicted. Sexual predators can have spotless records because they’ve never been caught and/or no one has pressed charges.

By Lisa B.

February 6, 2007 02:23 PM | Link to this

Back in the 80’s a department head at a large university was arrested for sexually abusing children. As it turned out, the newspaper was quickly able to find out the professor had been arrested and convicted in other states, and had a long criminal history. No background check of any kind had been performed prior to employment by the university. The outcome was far worse than embarrassing. College students were shocked and horrified, but those poor little victims were damaged for life.

By JustMe

February 6, 2007 03:17 PM | Link to this

jimd-

If there was even one news item of any professor causing trouble, I might be more apt to agree to this. But why institute something like this when there is no proven need?

I thought that you were the king of minimum bureaucracy and government interferance!?!?!

So, if we need to background check professors, how about requiring a background check on all sales persons in a child’s clothing store? After all, don’t they potentially come in closer physical contact than some professor in front of a class? How about requiring a background check on people that sell candy? After all, they may even touch the hands of children!

Don’t you see where this is heading?

By high school teacher

February 6, 2007 03:22 PM | Link to this

Jables doth protest too much, methinks.

By Joy in Teaching

February 6, 2007 03:23 PM | Link to this

Jeff states: A person 18 years of age is considered an adult in this country, and therefore any “relationships” between a professor and a college student is between two consenting adults. The government has ZERO right to interfere.

Jeff, would you think the same of an 18 year old high school student and that person’s teacher? I hope not. Students and teachers (no matter the age) should have an ethical, working relationship. Sexual relationships tend to blur the lines greatly in relationships where one side (the teacher) has power over the other.

Personally, I have to ask why these professors seem to think that they have rights that other teachers in the state do not have. Yes, I’ve been fingerprinted and had a criminal background check in the past few years. It didn’t really bother me as I have nothing to hide. Come to think of it, I also had a criminal background check 20 years ago when I applied for a job as a cashier. Hmmmmm.

By JustMe

February 6, 2007 03:27 PM | Link to this

So Lisa…. one single instance way back in the 60’s justifies doing a background check on every single professor in every single college/university across the Country in the year 2007?

Don’t you see the silliness in this?

Also, background checks are currently done in GA for all public school teachers. But, that doesn’t stop student/teacher sexual exploits. These do occur (much more than the public even gets to know of).

So these “background checks” really do not prevent anything. All they do is add another layer of cost and BS.

The solution to this is the same for everything - punish those that offend. Do not punish the innocent.

By Jeff

February 6, 2007 03:29 PM | Link to this

Joy:

Let’s put it this way: While I was a teacher, I obeyed and respected the law regarding student/teacher relationships with 18 year olds. That does NOT mean that I agree with them. I stand behind my statement as you quoted it.

By JustMe

February 6, 2007 03:30 PM | Link to this

Joy in Teaching -

So you were fingerprinted and background checked to teach? During your years of teaching, have you ever heard of a teacher having sex with a student?

Why didn’t the fingerprinting and background check stop this?

THINK ABOUT IT!!!!

By my goodness

February 6, 2007 03:49 PM | Link to this

Jeff, what is there not to agree about the law regarding student/teacher relationships?

Monica and Bill were both adults, but he was still in the position of power.

By Jeff

February 6, 2007 03:57 PM | Link to this

goodness:

ANY relationship between two consenting adults is up to them. The government should keep its head out. (Period)

Dang…. Jeffersonian Republican beliefs make for some STRANGE bedfellows these days!!!

By Karen

February 6, 2007 03:59 PM | Link to this

Some suspicious looking guy comes into my neighborhood every sunny day blaring child melodies from a rickety old truck. Apparently, it’s some ploy to arouse the curiosity of any children playing nearby.

The children run up to him with faces of glee and blind trust. They bring him money. He gives them treats. He looks rather shady to me, and that vehicle looks like it could hold quite a few kids.

I sure would like to get his background checked out. I’m not sure who to call though. It doesn’t appear that he’ll be applying for a professorship anytime soon.

By my goodness

February 6, 2007 04:16 PM | Link to this

Jeff it’s obvious why you don’t ever seem to fit in at the schools where you choose to teach. You’re just too darn independent to follow the rules and keep your mouth shut, which is needed trait of teachers who depend on the GOVERNMENT to sign their paycheck.

By Jeff

February 6, 2007 04:36 PM | Link to this

goodness:

Don’t get me wrong. I will obey any law for any given situation I find myself in.

But REST ASSURED, if I don’t agree with a law (NCLB for example), I WILL work to change it.

By Vicki

February 6, 2007 05:07 PM | Link to this

When I taught pre-school I had my background checked. I had no problem with them checking on me, besides my kids went to the same pre-school. I knew that all the teachers had their backgrounds checked, too.

Back in my early 20s I had to register with the city to get a liquor permit to serve drinks for a part-time job while I was in college. A background check and fingerprinting is done for a liquor license, too. I had not problem with that either.

So the question of checking professors’ background should be done prior to them teaching in the classroom. If my memory serves my correctly, some of my professors were not even US citizens.

By SET

February 6, 2007 05:14 PM | Link to this

The real fun of this thread is that educrats don’t live in the real world - so they are tortured when reality intrudes into their silly fantasies - in this case the fantasy about their “rights”.

Employers are held responsible for forseeable acts of their agents and employees. Not only that, employers have a fiduciary responsibility not to have their buildings burned down or property of the institution and it’s clients stolen, their other employees hurt, etc., by loony tune workers negligently hired.

The Roman Catholic Church is paying the ultimate price for negligent hiring - and in fact their actions in the posting of pedophile priests goes beyond negligence into malice (which is why they’re having to pay punitive damages to some of the victims of these priests.

So yes, in 2007 you are not free to hire anybody you want and turn them loose on your clients and the public.

That means you have to background new hires to a reasonable extent. They have no privacy rights in many areas. They do have privacy rights in some areas. No one has “privacy” rights to what is in the public record - as a starter.

Which is why in many jobs here in CA when you apply you may be required to submit a certified copy of your DMV driver’s license print-out. Criminal records are commercially available on the internet and by research companies. Or a clerk can be sent down to the local courthouse where you live to take a look at the Civil and Criminal files. Our County Recorder’s Office records are now available for free on the internet - which means your recorded tax liens and judgements are online for free 24/7.

I see people turned down for jobs all the time due to DMV records, Credit Records (even just the Credit Score which is not protected by law as the Credit Report itself is) and Criminal & Civil Records. I have seen people turned down for internships because of what was in restraining order paperwork when the applicant was the plaintiff.

Young people in general and some people old enough to know better just will not keep their personal life out of the courts. And off the Internet.

Good employers are not hiring druggies, people associated with druggies, and people acting/looking like druggies, credit criminals, and losers in general. Not to mention people who date druggies, parolees or stalkers.

Then the rejects want to cry about it. Boo Hoo.

If the public schools would just resume teaching such things a “birds of a feather flock together” and discrimination, etc. The public school products would be able to deport themselves better - or at least get a clue.

As far as school hiring…Let’s go back to the mission statement of the public schools. Are they there to teach anything…. Is political correctness more important than all other things…

Doubt the public schools will background. The state requires fingerprinting and criminal records check. So our schools will likely do the minimum and not hire convicted criminals.

By Janine

February 6, 2007 05:26 PM | Link to this

I thought all teachers in GA . had to be fingerprinted for a criminal background check. Is that different from the “background check” that Bridget mentions? One of our teachers who had been hired just before the school year started was fired when the results of his fingerprint check came back. Turns out he had marijuana possession conviction in AZ in the 70’s. He seemed to be a great teacher…but he was gone the next day.

By Jeff

February 6, 2007 05:52 PM | Link to this

Janine:

That’s the EXACT reason that I say background checks shouldn’t be allowed. A man makes a stupid decision. A few years later, he changes his life, becomes a GREAT teacher (from what you say).

Do we rip him from the classroom because of his stupid decision THIRTY YEARS AGO or do we trust that he has changed?

Obviously, in his case, we do the former. But in the case of the senior senator from the Great State of Massachusetts, we do the latter (even though the senator has shown NO proof of change!!)

By SET

February 6, 2007 06:19 PM | Link to this

The reason for a skeptical eye on employee candidates with remarkably bad credit is that this is now a proxy for drug involvement. (example: $25 bad checks all over town on a $50K income…)

Keeping druggies out of your organization is nearly a matter of life and death in CA. Even if their friends/dealers/lovers don’t show up and shoot the workplace up they are a big liability on your Worker’s Comp Insurance and Health Insurance rates. No one wants the drama anymore.

By cy

February 6, 2007 06:30 PM | Link to this

i think that the people who “shape” minds should be under more background checks than someone in a regular job. i do athink that some of the background info that employers can run is a little above and beyond. seeing someones past employment, education, references is pretty basic. now, i have read where they can see your driving record- which with some jobs makes since but if you a waiter..come on. one of the others i was shocked by is your credit report…unless you are getting a job that has to do with accounting or financial planning there is little reason to be looking there. i will however applaud the employers that are now looking at myspace pages. i think if you put it out there for the world you are just asking for it.

By SET

February 6, 2007 06:47 PM | Link to this

Cy: See the postings above. The financial and driving backgrounds are proxys for drug screening. Behaviorial and fidelity issues are essential for any decision to hire anyone in California. It doesn’t matter what the employee is used for. A good workplace will block troublesome people getting access to it’s physical plant, it’s workers or the students/clients.

Because Educrats have interests other than the safety of the workplace they will often cut the backgrounding to that minimally required by law. We fingerprint (to block impersonations and to find criminal records). The fingerprinting also “registers” the applicant so that a law enforcement agency who later pulls the file will be on notice that the person is involved with a school district.

CA law in many instances requires immediate police notification of the employer when a school employee is arrested.

By Vicki

February 6, 2007 06:49 PM | Link to this

With my background check for teaching pre-school, I had to fill out some paper work with an area for an explanation of anything they may find during the process. I did in fact have a stupid past indiscretion that I felt needed to be addressed. I explained what happened and how it was a learning experience not to be repeated.

A background check needs to be more than just checking DMV, police records and credit scores.

By Jeff

February 6, 2007 06:59 PM | Link to this

Vicki:

Fortunately for me, my own indiscretions happened as a minor (and were relatively minor anyway), so my record was destroyed several years ago. (Well, sealed. And it takes a passcode that - from what I was told -only I have to open it. And guess what? As soon as I got that letter, I destroyed it. So not even I know that passcode!)

I STILL object to background checks on principle. Even though all anyone is going to find in mine is crappy credit and (particularly in the 18-21 period) multiple traffic tickets. I say the ONLY places an employer should be able to check are former employers and the references the person provides during the recruitment process.

By Vicki

February 6, 2007 07:20 PM | Link to this

I do understand your objections. I just happen to not agree. And by the way, it’s not the first time I haven’t agreed with you here. :)

Good evening - hubby’s finally home.

By KA

February 6, 2007 07:34 PM | Link to this

At a minimum universities and colleges should verify academic credentials and information disclosed on resumes and applications. The HR departments can cover their liabilities by asking probing questions about expulsions, convictions, etc. in their interviews.

By thomas

February 6, 2007 07:37 PM | Link to this

I knew it-

You people have drank the kool-aid. And want more. So sad, so sad.

You don’t even realize how pointless this whole debate over background checks is. So sad. So sad.

The people who live in thatch huts and sleep on hammocks aren’t this pathetic. They eat rice and dirt, while you live in rich homes, grow fat from fine meals, drive luxury cars, AND THE NATIVES OF THE BUSH HAVE MORE SENSE THAN YOU SO-CALLED SUPERIOR PEOPLE.

Sometimes I think that lower animals have more sense than some of these so-called civilized people.

Mr. Ed, the horse wouldn’t go for this foolishness.

By Jeff

February 6, 2007 07:38 PM | Link to this

KA:

THAT I could agree to

By KA

February 6, 2007 07:49 PM | Link to this

thomas, are you addressing my post? Frankly, any institution that does not verify information presented by applicants is opening themselves up to liablity. Practice safe hiring…

By KA

February 6, 2007 07:59 PM | Link to this

thomas, sadly, people lie on their resumes and applications. Knowing that, can’t you agree that hiring managers should verify the applicant’s information?

By The72John

February 6, 2007 08:25 PM | Link to this

I’m pretty sure that the people of the Bush don’t eat rice…rice requires rather specific and high-maintenance cultivation that isn’t easily accomplished by people who are largely nomadic.

That said…I’m not really sure what you were trying to accomplish by your “oh my god, you’re all pathetic” rant, but if gross generalizations and ramapant ignorance was your goal, then - Congratulations!

By KA

February 6, 2007 08:46 PM | Link to this

72, LOL, clash of cultures!

By Lee

February 7, 2007 08:34 AM | Link to this

Good grief. Much ado about nothing.

There are two forces at work here:

The last thing a Chancellor, President, Dean, et al wants to do is to open up the morning paper and see the University’s name splashed across page 1.

Bottom line, there is no “inherent right” to a job. Organizations should be free to establish the criteria for employment and use whatever means to ensure that the people they hire meet their standards.

Much easier and cost effective to NOT hire someone rather than try to fire them after they get thier foot in the door.