Faculty background check parameters too vague

OUR OPINION: The parameters the administration sets on which current or potential faculty members are subject to criminal, financial and DMV background checks are too vague, and carelessly dealing with such fragile information is dangerous.

Much like students and Student Government, faculty members and the Faculty Senate are struggling with the decisions the administration makes.

As of April 1, Human Resources will subject any person applying for a faculty position to a criminal background check. Human Resources also has the ability to pull credit and DMV background checks if they deem it necessary.

As defined by Barbara Carroll, the associate vice chancellor for human resources, any person applying for a faculty position or any faculty member who is switching departments will be subject to a criminal background check.

While these parameters are fairly vague, the situation really gets gray when dealing with credit and DMV checks.

According to Carroll, if a faculty member has "University financial access," they are subject to a credit report check, and if they use a vehicle on behalf of the University, they are subject to DMV checks.

These parameters have an incredible amount of loopholes and give too much power to Human Resources, which, because of the way the parameters are worded, can run a check on virtually any high-ranking staff member or academic.

Faculty members aren't happy, and rightfully so.

The fact that "a handful of people may see [the background checks]," according to Carroll, muddles the situation even further.

Human Resources is dealing with very sensitive information -- faculty members' reputations -- and should handle it with care. There should be a maximum of two people that see the background checks: a gatherer and a decision-maker.

It is up to faculty members, the Faculty Senate and the administration to decide and agree on who those two people should be.

But before that decision can be made, Human Resources, while entertaining input from faculty members, needs to make the parameters for the background checks as clear as possible.

The ability to check who this University hires, on all three fronts, is essential; however, it must be done responsibly, with consistency.

As it stands, the policy isn't fair and needs to be amended. This is just another example of how the University takes advantage of the "little guy," and the backbone of this institution, the faculty, shouldn't be subject to unjust policies, and neither should students.

Compromise is the best way to make the parameters fair and consistent, and as grown-ups, this issue shouldn't be hard to fix through non-bureaucratic conversation.

Just imagine what the administration could impose on students if they can push faculty members around like this.