Employees are rightly concerned that the new rule does away with due process. While everyone prefers that all workers be of the highest moral fiber, people make mistakes. Those who pay the penalty for their crimes should be regarded as rehabilitated until they prove otherwise. The number of death-row inmates cleared by DNA evidence ought to prove that an arrest is not a guarantee of wrong-doing.
Denying employment to those who have been convicted and served their time punishes them twice and may cause them to seek less-than-legal ways to earn their daily bread. Studies have shown that as people obtain more years of formal education, they become less likely to engage in criminal behavior or return to prison. Since virtually all graduate students work at the universities where they study, this rule closes a door in the faces of many who could become contributing members of an academic community and tax-paying members of society.
Since all employees are subject to criminal background checks at any time, those who have learned from their mistakes could find themselves out of work if they displease the wrong person. Professors whose political views do not sit well with administrators could find the rule used against them in a witch hunt. Perhaps even worse, some could find themselves out of work after years of employment because a misguided supervisor simply did not want to work with felons, however old and irrelevant their records.
Administrators claim that the new regulation will make campuses "safe while putting all employees on an equal footing. The [Texas State] Legislature is set to take up this issue in its next session, and [the A&M System] is simply trying to get ahead of the curve." (The Eagle, 4/27/07) Some suggested that the same standards be applied to students. Administrators would not rule out the possibility of future rules requiring students to pass similar background standards.
The Fifth and Fourteenth amendments to the U.S. Constitution clearly state that no person may be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process, nor be forced to testify against him- or herself. Here, an entity, an arm of the state, requires those accused of crimes to report the accusation, then permits them to be deprived of livelihood without waiting for the outcome of the trial. This rule ought to be challenged as unconstitutional on these grounds.
As the executive branch of the U.S. government increases its powers through tools like the USA PATRIOT Act, it becomes increasingly easy to run afoul of the law. Any rule that compounds the penalties for alleged wrongdoing, without requiring the government to prove its case before allowing sanctions is alarming.
The practice of criminal law in the United States is based on a presumption of innocence, which is why those accused of crimes are put on trial. If the United States government must prove beyond reasonable doubt that an accused person committed a crime, should not employers be required to afford the same protection?
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 48
But as to someone who has been convicted and done his/her time? I think any school has every right to not hire felons. Part of the punishment for someone who has been convicted and done time should be to realize that his/her career will never be the same. Perhaps that would help deter criminals - especially the white collar criminals..which most professor types would probably be.
Really though, shouldn't we hold people accountable for their actions? Also, though, shouldn't we allow a case-by-case consideration for each convicted person to determine if it's appropriate for them to be in a university or other educational setting?
I spoke with a young man recently who was hired for a position and later let go because he had been accused of a crime, even though all charges were dropped. I've also heard of people being turned down for jobs because they have poor credit ratings. I wonder how our society plans to deal with all the people who have lost jobs and credit ratings, and who are falsely accused of crimes and then cleared.
We have always been a very harsh society when it comes to criminal behavior. We are swift to punish, swift to incarcerate and forget, then quick to remind one of their past behavior. I believe it has a lot to do with the fundamentalist views of some religious - the punishing, strict father who condemns those who do not obey, annihilates those who go against him....it is a very archaic and very NON-Christian view of the world. And most of those who support this view are the very ones who call themselves "christians", or followers of Jesus Christ. These are the very opposite of Christ's views and teachings. How ironic.
As long as we continue to NOT view our justice system as one that fairly convicts and then rehabilitates first and foremost, then we will continue having institutions such as this one enact and enforce their own laws. I do hope that somebody like the ACLU goes to bat for the employees here and gets this rule shut down in a court of law. It is NOT constitutional to discriminate like this. Yes, we can do background checks. Yes, past behavior is a consideration, especially when working with youth. But, no, it is unconstitutional to fire someone for an arrest, and even a past conviction.
There is probably no way to enforce NOT hiring someone in the first place who has a record, though there are ways to waive rules in most areas. My husband has worked in the investment business for many years and part of his duties has been to do background checks on advisors and brokers. He said that in one case many years ago a young broker he interviewed had to report an arrest and conviction in college over a small amount of marijuana. Even though the rules said that he had to report it, it was based on my husband's judgement whether or not he got hired. My husband hired him....and he was an excellent employee.
God help this country in the future if this is the path we are going down. We will be damning our families, our neighbors and eventually ourselves with this kind of attitude.
Even worse, currently a super computer is being built that will be able to compute one thousand trillion computations per second. That's over 140,000 bits of information on every, man, woman, and child in the world. We all know that information will only be as good as the people inputting the data. Imagine what it might take to correct any false information.
We must all question anything that will negatively impact our freedoms
We should all question and be aware of false profits, for they are manipulators of the truth for their own self-serving purposes.
Trust in the word of God.
Stand up and let your words be heard. The next injustice may be closer to home.
Let's just try the Constitution in this country...that would be enough for me.
Thanks.
Your article is Featured in the Triple Name Club.
As for arrests I think that should be on a case by case basis. Some crimes are more meaningful than others in a college campus setting.
On the other hand, with the new climate since the Patriot Act and Homeland Security so many rights are being lost, that I think this one should definitely be defeated by whichever arm of the government can do so.
Once a precedent is set, then it will only go to serve the greater harm that is being done to this country already.
The regulation does not override the tenure process, though an arrest or conviction could be considered along with the standard tenure review, Kimbrough said. An employee also has the right to appeal a termination or another disciplinary action, he said.
Kimbrough also explained that Texas A&M administrators could create a "rule" that would serve as a subset of the A&M System regulation. That rule could address some concerns specific to A&M employees, he said, encouraging the faculty members to take part in that process.
I read the article and found no where that an arrest meant termination. It did imply that
an indictment increased the chance of termination. If the school works within the framework of the intended gaols then this could have a positive outcome. I do not know if A&M has a law school, but if they do then this could be a boon for the students.
Now the The Fifth and Fourteenth amendments to the U.S. Constitution clearly state that no person may be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process, nor be forced to testify against him- or herself.
As A&M cannot dictate statewide policy, neither article presented enough evidence as to the deprivation of life, liberty, or property. A&M does not have the authority to impose a death penalty nor to confiscate property so that leaves liberty. Does denial of employment at the school constitute loss of liberty? Is the school preventing employment elsewhere? These questions must be addressed before a court challenge can be successfully challenged.
The due process will be an easier challenge if they can prove the vetting process is invalid. This will be difficult to do as the school is seeking fairness in all facets. The requirement to report the arrest can be easily countered by the school by making it voluntary or by stating that non-disclosure looks negative on the accused. The school can claim the right of the employer to know when an employee needs time off or any activity that has a negative impact on performance.
We are willing ourselves into a tyranny without consideration for the fact that any law that can be used on "them" can also be used on "us." Giving GW Bush the right to spy on Americans does not end when some new person takes the helm. Try to imagine a USA with Fred Phelps in the White House, and the Bush Rules in effect.
The A&M System does not have a law school. It does have a "Hall of Dishonor" for professors that the Young Conservatives consider to be too liberal. The witch hunt scenario is not only possible but likely.
Excellent article Ann and you bring up several valid points as do most of the commenters here.
how 'bout we go back to giving the Constitution a try again?
It worked just fine before Chimpy took over, let's all work
towards getting it reinstated.
JESUS WAS
a bleeding heart liberal,
peace-loving, anti-establishment,
liberal hippie freak with
with strange ideas
EVERYTHING CONSERVATIVES
HATE.
If we continue down the road of the grossly misnamed "Patriot Act",
their shall be neither Freedom nor Liberty left for any Americans save the Super Wealthy or their foot-servants such as the Bushes, Cheneys, and their ilk.
Being fired is not depriving them of anything other than the ability to work for a specific organization. Your argument presents being employed by A&M as a right and it is not. You do not have the right to work anywhere that deems you undesirable.
The A&M System does not have a law school. It does have a "Hall of Dishonor" for professors that the Young Conservatives consider to be too liberal. The witch hunt scenario is not only possible but likely.
You might be the next Charles Manson, Obama might be the next Adolph Hitler, bin Laden might convert to Christianity and repent. None of these will withstand a legal challenge. The basic argument is I don't like it so it must be wrong. You have failed to present evidence to me, as a jurist, that something is wrong. The defendant (A&M) has, on the other hand, presented evidence that the program is not being used as a "witch hunt."
The consensus is that the program is Unconstitutional and a legal challenge should be presented. I have shown the reasons that a challenge would fail. If you still believe it is Unconstitutional then present an argument that a judge will accept and a jury will believe.
As in the right (security) to work at A&M?
"The administration says" is not proof of anything, except of course that they know how to talk. They also know how to lie. They would certainly never own up to any intent they had to use the rule to do harm to those they did not like.
In Texas, the law deems everyone to be an at-will employee. Anyone can be fired without cause from any job, public or private, and the employer need not give any reason whatever. The rule is unnecessary, except for tenure.
This rule is a way to circumvent tenure, which the administration has been trying to undermine for years with ideas like "post-tenure review."
Because there is a review of each individual case there is due process. The main flaw in their rules is the requirement to divulge public information. There is no invasion of privacy, only threat of embarrassment.
In Texas, the law deems everyone to be an at-will employee. Anyone can be fired without cause from any job, public or private, and the employer need not give any reason whatever.
South Carolina is also an at-will state, however we also have wrongful termination rules. Both the employer and employee must fulfill the minimum obligations of the employment contract. From what I have learned other at-will states have have similar rules.
Post tenure reviews are not a new concept and are required to ensure the integrity of the schools. Using indictments and convictions in no way circumvents tenure.
A professor is unlikely to obtain employment elsewhere if fired during the semester.
Employment is readily available except it times of extreme economic woes. Just because you cannot find work in your chosen field does not mean you are denied employment. If this were the case then medical doctors could never be stripped of their license nor lawyers be disbarred.
This brings us back to the failure to convince a laymen that the rules are Unconstitutional. The question that must be answered for the courts is should a school be required to maintain a convicted felon on staff? What process is just to maintain the safety and integrity of the school?
As others have said, America is on a course of creating more and more barriers for civilians and citizens to secure and maintain honest employment.
I have to agree, that this "Guilty until proven innocent" scenario is (so far) not well argued against, on any Constitutional basis.
This scenario can only be argued (with any hope of success) along lines of fair and equal Justice; because it is not Just to remove someone from their employment for being arrested (or convicted) for something which has no direct bearing on their work duties or their place of employment.
This seems to expand the concept that the organization you work for, has the right to tell you what you can and cannot do in your non-working time.
Texas seems to be the leading cultural edge of pushing folks whom they don't approve of off some cliff or under some bus. I'm sure they think this will create a pocket of righteousness and safety to wrap themselves in, but they will, in fact, only create an elitist enclave that will be blindly arrogant to its own misdeeds, ill-treatment and narrow views.
In other words, there will be damned little freedom.
Consider this current administration, who believes and practices the notion that "rights" are only awarded and accorded to those that they (the administration) deem worthy enough.
There are no inalienable human rights in this mind set. There is no equality.
Thank you, Bill, for understanding my contention. If the policy is deemed to be Unconstitutional then the case will probably come from:
I'm sure they think this will create a pocket of righteousness and safety to wrap themselves in,
We may noy like it or think it is right but that's the law.
So, folks in Texas, best look to your University; from the Halls of Academia, soon to the streets if you don't stand up on your hind legs now.
And folks near UC Santa Barbara Calif, your town has been making a fortune for years from college kids that don''t realize walking out into the street with a beer bottle will generate an arrest and a $1,000 fine= no mercy not ever!!!!
So "arrests" are easily trumped up nowadays.
Oh, is that you Chancellor?
Well, that employee we were talking about over poker Saturday night? Yeah, that one. No, he doesn't have an arrest record, yet.
I suppose, if one of my boys was to belly bump him during a routine stop, he might automatically shove away. We could make that assault on an officer; either misdeameanor, or felony, you decide, Chancellor.. .OK. Done deal.
Tell that sweet wife o' yours she sure do make the best Key-lime pie!
Yessir, hope she make's another'n by next Saturdays card game, see, ya then.
Using an arrest only against a person is clearly unconstitutional. This will lead to yet another drain of taxpayer money as the first challenge winds its way through the court process. An illegal terminatation will also end in the awarding of full back pay to the injured party, even though no work was done. It's a financial drain and a lapse in ethics. It also will not make anyone safer. Yet another example of using fear as a catalyst to taking away rights from people.
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
Thanks, Doyle. I can't find other words to express my feelings as well.
thanks, Ann, for this excellent article.
30 years ago, when I lived in MI things were different. Community college students knew to get the heck out of the buildings by 8:30 each night because after that the prison trustees arrived for their classes. They WERE trying to rehabilitate.
Anyway, this person above said that it's Christians who are most apt to not want a former felon in a job. The Bible does tell us that we must forgive. But that does not mean there are not consequences - sometimes permanent ones - for one's bad choices.