Ignorance is not bliss\nI was more than vaguely disturbed to read last week that the Indiana Memorial Union chooses not to run criminal background checks on all potential employees. \nSteve Managan, general manager of IMU Dining Services, has his heart in the right place, and I agree with his sentiment that convicted felons deserve a chance at social rehabilitation. Good for him for his dedication to this cause. In this case, however, his convictions have devolved into idiocy. There is no inherent problem with a policy of giving felons a chance at hire, but to simply deny the responsibility to know the criminal history of those considered for hire is absurd. There are certainly different levels of felony. Narcotics possession? Sure, go ahead and hire those people, since the odds that they would be dangerous to the people around them are low. Those with exceptionally violent histories or sex offender status, however, should be considered more carefully. \nIt’s unfortunate that the lives of convicted felons will always be blighted by their criminal records, but that’s the agency they chose to give up upon committing those particularly heinous crimes. The responsibility of employers should be to protect those who have not made such a life decision. The argument is fairly moot at this point, however, as the Union refuses to even run the background checks that would differentiate the dangerous felons from the innocuous ones. We simply don’t know who we’re dealing with. \nThis is not an issue of privacy or the promotion of a nanny state; it is merely an issue of what I would hope to be common sense. Employers should know what they are bringing into their establishments and to what their other employees and patrons are being exposed. The means of acquiring this information exists and pre-empting liability for the backsliding that has a 68 percent chance of occurring should be a top priority. If employers at the Union find the cost of getting this information unappealing, they should reconsider their priorities. Safety, especially in the setting of a huge public university, should be tops.\nI’m surely not a frail creature, but knowing now that possible sex offenders or violent criminals might be lurking about the Union certainly makes me nervous. Managan should feel free to continue his policy of goodwill toward convicted felons, but not without the background information necessary to make educated hiring decisions.\nSafety and certainty are worth any cost. --Grace Low
Checks are obstacles\nThere is not a single person alive who hasn’t done something stupid, thoughtless, regrettable or even harmful to others in the past. Sometimes that might mean cheating, lying, stabbing a friend in the back or any number of other infractions. And many times, we commit these offenses because of the stress, anger or passion we feel in the heat of the moment, not considering the regrettable consequences that could follow. \nBut the rules of human decency dictate that if a person can be reformed and can learn to rue their decision to act in such a detrimental matter, we forgive and forget their crime. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, the role of our criminal justice system is “to serve the public interest through the development and enforcement of criminal statutes in a vigorous, fair, and effective manner.” That’s how it’s supposed to work, right? \nWell, apparently that’s not always the case. Although the U.S. criminal justice system is based upon this principle in name, ex-convicts nationwide are finding that society is simply unwilling to allow them to reintegrate themselves.\nCurrently, there is a panic among institutions of higher learning, following an incident on the University of Colorado-Boulder campus in which a former cashier employed by the school slit the throat of an incoming freshman. The Indiana Memorial Union has instituted a policy in which all employees, except those employed by the dining services, must undergo a background check. While this has the potential to sift out workers with dubious tendencies, it also may disqualify ex-offenders who have truly reformed their behaviors and are less likely to be of any harm to the students than a drunken frat boy on a Friday night.\nBesides, is one small incident that happened across the country worth this financial burden? Can the perpetually cash-strapped IMU afford to spend between $20 and $50 per person to run a fine-toothed comb through the pasts of its more than 200 employees? And is it really fair to put employees’ jobs in jeopardy because of societal paranoia? \nIf we refuse to allow ex-criminals to reintegrate themselves into our workforce, how will they ever find stability? And if they have no stable income and nowhere that will accept them, it seems possible that this might force ex-offenders to revert back to their old ways. Aren’t we just driving them back into prison, if they can’t get a job in food service?\nSadly, considering the subhuman treatment we afford them once they’ve done their time, maybe they were better off there anyway. --Abby Schwimmer
