Should faculty agree to background checks?

YES
Joanne Scott and Gerald E. Hough II:
They protect the safety of all

Conducting background and fingerprint checks for all college employees is fair, sensible and a reasonable response to the need to protect property and personal safety. Theft of technology and equipment is always a concern for colleges and universities. For example, our labs have expensive scales and balances, desirable paraphernalia for the drug trade. Campus crimes also include acts of violence, such as sexual assault. The university has a moral obligation to assure the safety of those individuals who work late at night in laboratories and lounges.

Some have suggested requiring background checks only for employees who have extensive room accessibility, that is, security and housekeeping personnel. We maintain that such a policy would be elitist; faculty and professional staff are not “above” the need for background checks.

Other concerns raised in the discussion at Rowan University in New Jersey are the problems of mistaken identity and blacklisting. Fingerprints establish one’s identity; they don’t reveal your political views, ethnicity or orientation on various social scales. Fingerprinting would verify that a criminal background check containing a violent assault is that of the job applicant, not the record of another like-named individual. If you’re not who you say you are, or you don’t want your fingerprints verified for any reason, we personally don’t want you working with us, or with our students, late at night.

What about the fear that background checks and fingerprinting will expose acts of civil disobedience or unconventional personal views that could be used against a subset of prospective employees? While we doubt that most forms of nonviolent activism would surface in a criminal background check, it is possible that arrests (and more importantly, convictions) due to such activity might make it into a person’s file. We think that if a person is a peaceful activist, that shouldn’t raise a red flag. The person reviewing the check should be competent to make that distinction.

A policy requiring fingerprinting as part of criminal background checks for all new employees is not outrageous. As long as the policy gives the applicant the legal right to question possible hiring prejudice due to the contents of his/her record, this should avoid any oppressive intrusions into personal privacy or undue prejudice against certain individuals.

Joanne Scott is an associate professor of biological sciences and Gerald E. Hough II is an assistant professor of psychology and biological sciences at Rowan University. Both are members of the Rowan chapter of the Council of New Jersey State College Locals/AFT. This debate is condensed from a longer version that appeared in the council’s publication, The Voice.

NO
David R. Applebaum:
They add to a culture of fear

This fall, Rowan University in New Jersey announced its plan to conduct criminal background checks with fingerprinting of all future employees, including faculty. The announcement got a mixed reception. Personally, I oppose fingerprint checks on faculty because they trample on protections guaranteed in the Bill of Rights, they open the door to abuses of power and they erode progress on social justice.

The new policy and procedures undermine the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. We will lose the presumption of innocence and investigations limited by evidence of probable cause. The policy normalizes self-incrimination and renders the Fifth Amendment meaningless. We must recognize the dangers of a regime of inquisition and confession to the life of the mind.

Historically, we have seen that expansion of criminal conspiracy laws compromises our ability to maintain the intellectual integrity of scholarly work. Woodrow Wilson’s criminalization of opposition to World War I, the “Red Scare,” Palmer Raids, McCarthyism, jailings for civil disobedience during the 1960s and criminal retaliation against higher education organizers in the same period are examples. Academic freedom is fragile. The USA Patriot Act, combined with the expansion of conspiracy law, means that we face a clear and present danger.

The policy will deny social justice by creating lifetime sentences. It will transform single acts into permanent criminal identities. We will contribute to the construction of a class of people consigned to marginal as well as subordinate career opportunities. We will be reinforcing the power of private-sector employers who arbitrarily use the private, profit-making criminal justice industry to force submission and passivity into workplace culture. If we say no, our actions can encourage others, outside the university, to question, challenge and resist oppressive acts and repressive behaviors.

We have no evidence that fingerprinting a small minority of the campus community will make us safer. We have ample evidence that criminal background checks add to a culture of fear and suspicion that habituates citizens to sacrifice freedom for pseudo-security. There are better ways to use scarce resources to improve conditions of safety and security on our campuses.

Some who oppose the university’s proposal see a potential need for fingerprinting or criminal checks for certain “sensitive” employee positions, e.g., employees who work with minors, handle cash deposits or large sums of money, or those who have unlimited access to student residences. The majority of campus hires do not conform to these specialized situations. Faculty, general maintenance, office staff and communication/service workers should not be subjected to background investigations that go beyond the scope of their occupation.