Sender: |
|
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
Date: |
Thu, 20 Jun 1996 20:11:17 -0400 |
Reply-To: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
The belief that criminal record checks and testing for drugs is useful =
is based on several assumptions that I think should be carefully =
examined.
1 If a background check turns up a criminal conviction, that person has =
a criminal record. There are too many accounts of innocent people with =
names similar to those of criminals, or "borrowed" by criminals, who =
spend years and much money to prove their innocence.
2 If a background check turns up no criminal conviction, then that =
person has no criminal record. There are many sources both printed and =
on the Internet that provide instruction on how to assume a new =
identity.
Also, this could just indicate they haven't been caught yet!
3 Drug tests are infallible. NOT...even the most reliable tests can have =
up to a ten percent false positive rate. Also, there are certain =
substances that can be used to mask the presence of drugs in the urine.
Additionally, is there a cause and effect between a positive drug test =
and the dinosaur falling down. (What museum lays such a task on a =
single employee?)
4 If the policies requiring these procedures are not followed 100%-board =
of trustees, director, professional staff, support staff, etc-then the =
institution is looking a potential law suit for discrimination.
In the only concrete example presented to this strand, someone who =
failed the drug test and had a criminal record, these checks were not =
needed, checking school records and references provided sufficient =
information that this person was not trustworthy.
Trust is a two way street. Find people who are trustworthy and reward =
them with institutional trust. At the same time keep temptation away =
with procedures and safe guards. As the old gipper said-trust, but =
verify.
|
|
|