Misguided Faculty Resolution Opposes Criminal Background Checks

Too many employers indiscriminately require job applicants to disclose criminal convictions. This has an adverse effect on minority applicants—and more importantly, does not inquire as to the nature of the offense, how long ago it occurred, and how it relates to the job today. Thus, a person’s pot-possession or DUI or disorderly conduct conviction can prevent them from being considered for a job. The AFL-CIO— the main federation of American labor unions— favors a public policy that “bans the box,” and instead, allows employers to conduct a background check only after the individual has been selected for hiring. The AFL-CIO position states: ‘“Fair chance’ means policies like postponing background checks until later in the hiring process, so applicants can be judged by their qualifications first. It means weighing relevant factors, such as the age of the offense, its relatedness to the job and evidence of rehabilitation, before rejecting a qualified applicant because of a past record. Through executive action, the president can transform the federal government into a model employer for people with records.” 

UIUC has adopted the exact policy for faculty and staff that is favored by the American labor movement. It mandates a “criminal background check must be conducted after the selected candidate accepts a written contingent offer but prior to beginning employment.” If there is a conviction history, a campus committee must make “an individualized assessment of the conviction history and the job responsibilities in order to determine if the criminal conviction poses a level of risk that might preclude clearing the candidate for employment in the position, considering, but not limited to: i. the nature and seriousness of the underlying offense/conduct; ii. the relatedness of the offense/conduct to the position being sought; iii. the length of time that has elapsed since the conviction, end of sentence, and the offense/conduct, and iv. demonstrated rehabilitative efforts.” A faction of the UIUC Senate remains impervious to the reasonableness of the new policy. Their resolution—which passed on a no-confidence vote— claims “it is inequitable to include considerations of arrest or conviction record of an otherwise successful applicant.” By implication, they also oppose the policy endorsed by America’s largest and most progressive labor unions. To compare the UIUC and AFL-CIO policies, click on the UIUC Policy and the AFL-CIO Policy.