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.