Background check policy problematic
On Friday, March 23, the Wildcat ran an article on the front page titled, "New UA policy might examine job applicants' backgrounds" by Daniel Scarpinato.
After reading the article, I went on and visited the Staff Advisory Council's Web site and read the meeting minutes for March addressing this topic.
In addition, a Wildcat editorial on Monday, March 26 addressed the issue.
Between the Wildcat article and SAC's meeting minutes, the following types of background checks and tests appear to be under consideration: financial histories, criminal background, driving records through the MVD and random drug testing.
Needless to say, I find these proposals to be problematic. As the editorial points out, newly hired staff already agree upon being hired that their position is conditional upon a review of criminal records and that the UA may check the accuracy of responses made on the hiring form. Currently, hiring forms do not include questions related to an applicant's financial history other than salaries received from previous employment. Nor do hiring forms ask questions related to one's driving or drug use history.
My financial history is nobody's business but my own and the financial institutions I choose to open accounts with. Random drug testing by government entities is an unconstitutional infringement on Fourth Amendment rights and in keeping with Supreme Court interpretations, there is no compelling government need in the UA hiring process that could possibly justify "exceptions" to the Fourth amendment. Further, for most employees, his/her driving record is of no concern to the university. If delving into these types of inquiries isn't bad enough, the current proposal is to use third-party private contractors to carry out the background checks. This in turn allows private contractors with employees not under the supervision or control of the university, access to sensitive personally identifiable information regarding all UA job applicants. Individuals hired by the university represent a subset of this group.
There doesn't appear to be any demonstrated need for a change in current hiring practices. Checking crime statistics on the UAPD's homepage reveals no appreciable change in the level of property or violent crimes committed at the university in the recent past. The article indicated that the change is being considered in order to "smoothen concerns over liability due to workplace theft and violence." This hardly represents a legitimate reason to invade the privacy of applicants and why are we allowing lawyers and insurance companies to dictate the level of privacy and respect individuals enjoy within our community.
Article 2 - Section 8 of Arizona's state constitution reads: "No person shall be disturbed in his private affairs, or his home invaded, without authority of law."
Every employee of the university swore an oath upon being hired by the university to obey the laws of the state along with the U.S. and state constitutions. Perhaps Human Resources and certain members of SAC should review these documents before making intrusive and privacy invading policies affecting employees at the university. Do we really want to set up a policy that ostracizes members of the community that have made mistakes in their past but paid their dues to society after serving their sentences? Do we really want to live and work in a community where we are considered guilty until proven innocent? At what point does a free society become a "cleared" society, and what do we lose in the process?
Terrence Bressi
Lunar and Planetary Laboratory engineer
UAPD not guilty of racial harassment
I am writing in response to the accusations made on the front page of Monday's Wildcat about the UAPD and racial harassment. Supposedly, A.J. Montoy was harassed by UAPD officers because he is Hispanic, even though some of the officers involved were Hispanic. I know from personal experience that the UAPD has done the exact same thing to Caucasians as they did to Montoy. Rummaging around in a broken-into vehicle in the Tyndall Garage, the place where the most cars are burglarized on campus, is suspicious no matter what race you are. Also, Mr. Montoy is upset that he was treated like a criminal. Ironic, because he was a minor in possession of alcohol and had a fake ID, both of which are criminal offenses. Mr. Montoy is a criminal. The police treated him just how he should have been treated.
On a final personal note, I know many of the officers at the UAPD, including those involved in the Montoy incident. And I can promise this campus that they are all men and women of the utmost integrity who I very much admire and respect. The fact that Mr. Montoy would accuse them of racial harassment because he is upset that he got busted for his fake ID makes me sick to my stomach. I almost wish he would decide to file a lawsuit, just so he could see the judge laugh it out of court.
Anthony W. Nelson
criminal justice sophomore
