The Chronicle of Higher Education: Colloquy

This discussion is closed. This is a transcript.

Fracas over faculty fingerprints

Author: Colloquy Moderator
Date: 11-12-04 13:34

Calls for criminal background checks of all college workers have run headlong into faculty critics at New Jersey's Rowan University, whose president this fall thought he had won approval from his board, other top officials, and his faculty union to require such checks -- including fingerprint screening -- for all new employees. Is it unfair, or even biased, to subject only some types of workers to screening, as if they were more likely to commit crimes? Is it reasonable, or just elitist, for faculty members to demand a waiver on such checks? If background checks are to be imposed on a campus, what's the fairest way to do it? And are they an effective means of averting crime? Read more...

Re: Fracas over faculty fingerprints

Author: Molly Mfume, Prof. Emeritus
Date: 11-15-04 14:39

So now the liberals are crying over the right of their employer to keep fingerprints on file. When you take a job, you accept all of the conditions of that job or you find another job! But no, the liberals always have to find something to whine about. I say we make it a criminal offense to not voluntarily provide this information for background checks. Let the liberal whiners spend a night or two in jail. Then maybe they'll come to their senses, though I doubt it. They'll probably whine about the poor conditions of their cells!

Re: Fracas over faculty fingerprints

Author: Alan MacNutt, retired
Date: 11-15-04 14:46

As the top cop at three successive colleges and universities as well as at a research hospital I have investigated crimes committed by faculty on my current and previous campuses/hospital almost as many times as with crimes committed by staff. At my immediate previous campus in Connecticut, where we were having chronic thefts of cameras, video and audio recording devices from the media arts equipment room, where students would log out and in equipment for class assignments. The faculty member in charge kept blaming the students. Something bothered me about him, so I did an investigatory background check on him. Turned out that he was a fugitive from justice on a felony warrant from a midwestern state and that he had been since before my previous employer hired him. What makes faculty any better than anyone else? I know they think they are, but I'd hate to break the news to them, those beneath them in the campus caste system are members of the human race as well, not knuckle draggers. Back in the Eighties two of my colleagues at Pennsylvania campuses, Millersville and Shippensburg, arrested a faculty member who was teaching simultaneously at their respective campuses using names and teaching credentials of other American faculty who happened to be teaching in foreign campuses. He was teaching in two different disciplines on those campuses outside of his own area of expertise. Simultaneous to all this he was a faculty member of a third school in the DC area where he was teaching under his own name and legitimate credentials. All three schools were within two to three hours driving time. He was arrested at one of the two Pennsylvania schools just after he returned from an academic position interview for a vacancy at William & Mary, again under another completedly different person's identity and teaching credentials. All in all over a period of some years this imposter had used up to 31 different stolen identities in addition to his own in actual positions held or as a candidate for academic positions . Alan MacNutt

Re: Fracas over faculty fingerprints

Author: Anonymous
Date: 11-15-04 16:17

Molly,

Predictability is one thing, but simply repeating one thought over and over despite the context is lazy at best and stupid at worst. I thought it was conservatives who want to keep big government out of our lives. How in the world do you manage to bash liberal whiners on this topic before anyone has even posted a message? From now on when you decide to post a message in here, save yourself and the rest of us time and energy and just say "ditto." We will understand that you are saying that liberals are the scourge of the planet and responsible for every social problem in existence. In truth, I have my doubts about whether you actually exist and/or actually believe the things you post. This is my own version of intelligent design. The supporters of intelligent design basically say "I don't understand how evolution could result in the natural world, therefore something else must be responsible." I'm saying, "I don't understand how a real person could be as dense as Molly, therefore she's not a real person."

Re: Fracas over faculty fingerprints

Author: Dana Zimbleman
Date: 11-16-04 07:08

Can somebody with some experience with this issue--say, a college administrator--give us an idea of how much all of this might cost? Also, are universities willing to pay for background checks on ALL employees, including the president and business managers who have access to a heck of a lot of money? Are universities willing to do background checks on the scores of adjuncts they hire from semester to semester? Moreover, will college staff need to be re-checked at some point? What's to stop someone for committing fraud or other criminal behaviors AFTER he or she gets a university job?

Re: Fracas over faculty fingerprints

Author: Googlewacked
Date: 11-16-04 09:47

Anonymous wrote:

<snip> I have my doubts about whether you actually exist and/or actually believe the things you post.<snip>

I googled Miss Molly, and oddly enough for a distinguished professor emeritus, she only shows up in connection with her rants in the forum.

Re: Fracas over faculty fingerprints

Author: Anonymous2
Date: 11-16-04 11:02

My question is, what does my background have to do with my ability to do my job, be it a custodian or a professor? Will a past criminal history prevent me from doing his job? I don't think so.

To me, this smacks of (a) profiling and (b) an excuse for letting undesirable (outspoken) personnel go.

Will it make a campus safer? I doubt it (I don't have any studies at hand to refer to).

Will it act to stifle discussion and diversity of opinion on controversial subjects? Possibly.

What will be next? Polygraphs? Loyalty oaths?

Re: Fracas over faculty fingerprints

Author: jgarner
Date: 11-16-04 14:49

Well,

Of course, the Civil Liberties precedence here is obvious. At what point does private information become public information?

I am acquainted with Ultra-Conservatives who also have a problem with this sort of thing, so the protest of it cannot be blamed on Liberals. I have talked to an Ultra-Conservative minister who is sure that this sort of this is the ushering in of the precedence to require everyone wear the "mark of the beast" in their hand or forehead. Vets can implant a micro-chip in your pet now that will allow the identification of that pet.

Will DNA samples be required of faculty in the future? If so, of course you know that you can be rated for insurance with a DNA test, don't you? Just think how much money college administrators could save on insurance premiums by genetically screening faculty before hiring them instead of looking at their qualifications.

At one point in Indiana all new public school teachers had to submit to a fingerprint check with the state to get their teaching license. The problem was that the financial cost to the state was high and there was no one "caught" to my knowledge trying to do something that they shouldn't have been doing in regard to obtaining a teacher's license.

Of course, those in charge some four-year institutions have more money than common sense. I would suggest to Mr. MacNutt that if the faculty he caught "double dipping" or other things had been on the full time faculty at the institution that employed him and had that faculty been properly supervised by his/her department chair, that she/he would not have had the ability to do what he did.

In addition, if schools did not use so many adjuncts, their collective faculty would be better known personally, professionally and functionally to those in charge. As it is, the system does not work because it is broken. Not financially, of course, but from the organizational point of view.

Colleges, for the most part, should not be ran like law enforcement agencies or penal institutions.

Taking the fingerprints of the faculty at a college or university will not fix the problem. It is just a lazy way to attempt to fix rampant mangerial and/or financial problems that are so prevalent in American education today.

Earth to jgarner, Earth to jgarner

Author: Carl Nguyen, adjunct
Date: 11-17-04 11:03

Wow! So you really, really do know people who think taking a fingerprint is slippery slope towards us all getting a "mark of the beast". You need to get some new friends.

Its also dishonest to say ultra-conservatives have a problem with this. Those of you one the radical left have been using this tactic for several years now. That is, whenever the lies of the left are brought out into the light, they blame the messanger and accuse them of doing the same thing. Well jgraner, it isn't going to work anymore.

It is the radical left---you know, those who never left the 60's---who are terrified of this. Why? The radical left has always had this conflict between socialism and freedom to do what they want. They have thrown themselves on the alter of "civil liberties" while at the same time promoting welfare and all sorts of social programs.

All kinds of occupations require fingerprints (police, fire, military, etc., etc.) Of course, the radical left never goes into those professions. They like academia where tenure guarantees life-time employment and you don't really have to be held accountable for anything. You can say anything and do nothing---all under the umbrella of "academic freedom".

Well now someone wants to do a background check to cull the bad ones and the left squeals like stuck pigs.

I really, really do hope this practice spreads. After all, if you haven't done anything wrong, then you have nothing to fear from fingerprints. Besides, it might protect the rest of us.

Re: Earth to jgarner, Earth to jgarner

Author: Who is whom
Date: 11-17-04 12:16

I'm absolutely convinced that Carl Nguyen is another pen name for the poster who also uses the pen name Molly Mfume. I believe he's trying to make the ethnic circuit, to make us believe that even those with racialized-sounding surnames can be right-wing wackos, too. Next, we'll be hearing from a first-time poster w/ a latino surname or a "John Ten Bears" native american.

Re: Fracas over faculty fingerprints

Author: Jane Buck, President, AAUP
Date: 11-17-04 12:49

The American Association of University Professors (AAUP)today issued a press release, a portion of which addresses this topic:

With increasing frequency, colleges and universities are now requiring extensive background checks on all prospective employees, including faculty members. The new Association policy finds these new requirements to be �quite out of proportion� to actual problems facing the academy, and urges restraint in their adoption. While recognizing that there may be instances in which the nature of a particular faculty appointment may justify a more extensive background check of faculty credentials than is customary in higher education, the policy concludes that �for an ordinary faculty appointment, the likely benefits of a background criminal investigation... are dwarfed by the grave invasions of privacy caused by such investigations, as well as by the misuse of sensitive information.�

The statement includes a recommendation that three basic protections of the Fair Credit Reporting Act should be adopted as governing principles whenever an extensive background check prior to a faculty appointment is found to be necessary. The three protections are: (a) the candidate must be informed of the proposed background check, and must authorize it in writing, (b) the candidate must be given a copy of the final report, and (c) no adverse action should be taken on the basis of the report until the candidate has had an opportunity to contest its accuracy.

For the full text of the policy statement on background investigations, please visit the AAUP�s Web site at. http://www.aaup.org/statements/REPORTS/background.htm.

Re: Earth to jgarner, Earth to jgarner

Author: Dale
Date: 11-17-04 13:51

I reject the notion that "those who have nothing to hide have nothing to fear." Targeted fingerprinting for certain professions makes sense. But it is by no means a foolproof method of determining those who will do well and those who will not.

I'm afraid that this sort of biometric identification may make it easier for future decision-makers to require even more invasive procedures.

Besides, these tests don't even guarantee anything! What if you were incarcerated for a time and then became a productive citizen and earned a doctorate? Should you be continually penalized if this is your situation? I don't think so.

If you haven't done anything wrong<

Author: Scared of Nguyen
Date: 11-17-04 15:02

Dear Carl Nguyen:

You are one scary person. "If you haven't done anything wrong, you haven't got anything to be afraid of."

So, those people being held under the USA Patriot Act, deprived--mind you--of their constitutional rights as US Citizens "have nothing to fear" if they haven't done anything wrong?

If you haven't done anything wrong, why should you (arguably unconstitutionally--yes, I know, conservatives like you happily pick and choose the amendments you like--yeah to the 2d, nay to the 1st, 4th, 5th, 14th, and 15th)--be subject to search and seizure, which is what before-the-fact fingerprinting is? People can, of course, waive their rights (as happens in a variety of circumstances), but absent any clear and compelling rationale for asking them to do so, why should they?

Besides, have you stopped to consider the intellectual and moral bankruptcy of the "if you haven't done anything wrong" argument? Who decides what's WRONG? Say I teach at a religious college that has a strict anti-alcohol policy (I don't, thankfully). What if my fingerprint should happen to turn up on the surface of a bar downtown, and, as a result of a crime being committed there, it somehow were to come to the attention of the administration that my fingerprint showed up there?

Did I do anything wrong? The fingerprint doesn't really say, and I may be confident, as a tee-totaller who happened to go to that bar because the UPS guy left a package for me there, that I hadn't done anything wrong. But the administration--no doubt made up of people like you--would probably not take it that way.

It's all oh-so-comforting to rest in your sense of your own rectitude and your belief that you're so very moral and upright that your judgments are untainted by interest, misinformation, or evil intent. There's a reason, though, why we have a constitution, and it's to remove stuff like this from the whim of individuals who are afflicted with one or more of these.

But, hey, who needs the constitution? Let's just bash some liberals who have, after all, ruined the whole world by fostering civil rights, a social safety net, the space program (in case you didn't notice, this did the best under Kennedy and Johnson), and a lot of other things. Let's bomb some middle easterners, all the while telling them that, if they haven't done anything wrong, they have nothing to be afraid of.

I can hear you polishing your jackboots now. I hope they're shiny enough to show you your true reflection.

Re: If you haven't done anything wrong

Author: Dana Zimbleman
Date: 11-17-04 19:28

Can somebody who actually knows something about the issue at hand please answer my questions about how much background checks cost per employee? Also, are there any institutions out there that require background checks of adjuncts? How is that possible with the high turnover rate?

I don't really know enough about this to determine whether it's a good idea or not, but my experience in higher education leads me to believe that Mr. Garner is correct in suggesting that the feasibility of this is questionable. At the very least, I'd think institutions would be creating another bureaucratic headache that will drain already scarce financial resources.

Re: scared of Nguyen

Author: Carl Nguyen, adjunct
Date: 11-18-04 12:43

Dear Madam:

You are precisely the person I was referring to. You mention the patriot act and all of those people who have been "deprived" of their rights.

Okay, so I defy you to name one individual. Just one will do.
(and then be prepared to explain why this hasn't been plastered all over the front pages of the ultra-liberal NY times.)

You can't name one. The leftist, anti-American ACLU has tried. Oh God have they tried to find one---anyone---they can use to claim civil liberties have been trashed.

They have found absolutely nothing---and neither can you.

People who fear the patriot act and the mere fingerprinting of employees are borderline psychotic. They need to pursue some serious mental health help. Lots of jobs require fingerprints. Lots of jobs require background checks. Nobody panics about this. Nobody makes a fuss over this. (Oh, I forgot, academics are SPECIAL! Silly me.)

If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear.

If you do have something to hide (and it appears "scared of Nguyen" does), then don't apply for the job.

Simple, isn't it??

Re: scared of Nguyen

Author: Even more scared of Nguyen
Date: 11-18-04 14:00

OK, Carl,

Check this out, from the Cato Institute, no less:

http://www.cato.org/dailys/08-21-03.html

The Cato Institute, for those who don't know, is a conservative thinktank.

Jose Padilla is an American citizen; he was deprived of his Constitutional rights, among others the right to an attorney (6th amendment) and the right to a speedy trial.

The following is from The Independent, by Brigid O'Neil:

In a landmark victory for constitutional protections and the separation of powers in the post-9/11 era, a panel of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued a 2-1 ruling barring the president from declaring a U.S. citizen an �enemy combatant� without congressional authorization. In a decision likely to influence another case on enemy combatants before the Supreme Court case, the federal appeals court ordered the government to release U.S. citizen Jose Padilla from military custody in thirty days, with the option of transferring Padilla to civilian authorities for a criminal trial. The ruling marks a growing judicial backlash against unfettered presidential authority during a period of war. Given the week�s events, the ruling couldn�t have come at a better time. With controversy over the status of Guantanamo detainees and the PATRIOT Act growing to a feverish pitch, it�s about time the Constitution gained a voice, and an arm strong enough to back it up.

(http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1247)

Apparently, the 2nd US Circuit Court of appeals agrees with me, not with you, that a US citizen has been deprived of his constitutional rights by the USA Patriot Act. It's irrelevant whether or not Padilla is a scumbag, a terrorist, or anything else--his constitutional rights were violated, as affirmed by a finding of a US court.

Since Padilla is a pretty high-profile instance (it took seconds to find this stuff on Google), it's more than easy to imagine that any number of lower-profile folks are in the same boat but haven't received the same level of publicity.

Mr. Adjunct Professor Nguyen, it's pretty apparent that you have a reckless disregard for the truth, and that your hatefulness and willful blindness have made it impossible for you to see what's going on. I have nothing to hide--I have, in fact, passed a background check and have sworn a loyalty oath (my state requires one of all employees). Though I'm not proud of everything in my past, I'm also not afraid that anyone would find out about it or that if they did, that would disqualify me from employment.

However, being an idiot does disqualify you from employment in a lot of places. Especially places where being smart is at least a nominal requirement for employment. Too bad for you.

Re: scared of Nguyen

Author: Psychologist
Date: 11-18-04 14:12

Carl wrote:

"People who fear the patriot act and the mere fingerprinting of employees are borderline psychotic. They need to pursue some serious mental health help."

Among the millions of people who have concerns about the Patriot Act and background checks, undoubtedly there are some who are borderline psychotic, whatever that might mean. But fortunately most of us are quite sane. Many people who are concerned about suspension of due process rights and unnecessary intrusions into private lives by employers and government are conservative in their political beliefs. At least, they are conservative in the traditional meaning of the term, not in the sense that the current administration misuses the term.

Regarding background checks, it seems to me that there should be a balance between privacy rights and the legitimate needs of some employers and government agencies to check backgrounds. It seems obvious that anyone who wants to be a CIA agent should be thoroughly checked out. Ditto for police officers, scientists working on classified research projects, and security guards at nuclear facilities. But what exactly is the rationale for doing background checks on your average faculty member? Is it really worth the expense and intrusion into people's privacy?

Concerns about privacy are not exclusive to straw man looney leftists. The tendency of governments, corporations, and even universities to misuse personal information is a historical fact, not some leftist paranoid fantasy. I'd love to dump Carl, whoever he might be, into 1938 Germany or 1950 Soviet Union.

Re: scared of Nguyen

Author: Bert R. Herigstad
Date: 11-18-04 14:21

There are 640 people in prison now because of the Patriot Act. 640 that we know about. How many that we don't?
This does not count those sent to countries that torture (even more than the U.S. does).
Not one of these 640 have been convicted! With the possible exception of those that actually dared fly to the Middle East but were never convicted of any crime (terror or otherwise).
You want just one? How about 640 + who knows how many more?

re: even more scared...

Author: Becky Ann McClory
Date: 11-19-04 11:33

We are at war with radical religious fundamentalist (the left likes to call them "insurgents" instead of the terrorist they are.) It appears that "even more scared" doesn't get that yet.

Wake up people. We need to protect ourselves. Taking fingerprints is an excellent and perfectly reasonable idea to ihelp dentify those who in academia who support terrorism. Is it so soon that we have already forgotten Sami Al-Arian at the university of south florida????

re: even more scared...

Author: Dana Zimbleman
Date: 11-21-04 19:07

I would like Ms. McClory to clarify her statement that "taking fingerprints is an excellent and perfectly reasonable idea to help identify those who in academia who support terrorism." How, specifically, will a figerprint help identify "supporters" of terrorism? This presumes that "supporters" of terrorism already have an arrest record for terrorist acts. If we apply this logic, why stop with faculty fingerprinting? Why not require everyone in the whole country to submit to criminal background checks?

Again, I would like to hear from somebody with expertise on employee background checks rather than individuals who grossly oversimply the issue. How much do background checks cost at large-scale universities with hordes of faculty (full and part time), staff, and administrators to manage? How many additional staffing and bureaucratic hassles are involved?

re: even more scared...

Author: Scared of Becky, Too
Date: 11-22-04 09:35

Becky,

The terrorists who attacked the WTC and the Pentagon are not the same people as the "insurgents" in Iraq, most of whom, it appears, are Iraqis who could reasonably be said to be defending their homeland, which is precisely what you would do if the situation were inverted.

This is not to say that I support their actions, which I think are irrational and counterproductive. In action they are terrorists who are acting against their own people, as well as an invading force, and who are using plainly undemocratic ends to get what they want, which is not a good thing at all.

However, violating the presumption of innocence for tens of thousands of college and university employees to catch one person who MAY have been in support of terrorism is a waste of resources and plays right into the hands of the terrorists, if it's truly the case that "They hate us because we're free." So, if we give up our freedom, will they hate us less?

Being skeptical of authoritarian impulses doesn't mean one supports terrorism, or that one "doesn't get" the stakes. It means that one is actually THINKING about costs and benefits, and considering that if our way of life is at stake, it's worth preserving, WHOLE, rather than in a grossly compromised, paranoid, fascist form. This is harder than simply repeating the slogans of the ignorant and provincial right and the uncritical flag-wavers. However, in the long run it's also the way not to "let the terrorists win."

People like you scare me a lot more than terrorists, since you're a lot likelier to have an impact on my life than they are.

I'm proud to be an American, but am ashamed by the shabby and dishonest quality of public discourse on these matters and the failure of thought and intellectual honesty on all sides.