Pennsylvania College Professors Fight Back against New Background Check Requirement

By Michael Klazema on 8/21/2015
Pennsylvania's 14 state universities are currently in the process of implementing a new policy that would require background checks of all professors, according to a new report from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. The new policy was handed down by the State System of Higher Education, which is looking to add criminal checks and child abuse clearances not just for professors, but for all workers at public state universities. Between faculty, student employees, and volunteers, that would mean 43,000 people would be affected by "the initial round of checks," according to a spokesman for the State System for Higher Education.

In essence, the State System's new policy is in line with a broader Child Protective Services Law, which has gone into effect around Pennsylvania this year. The Child Protective Services Law mandates criminal background screenings and child abuse clearances for all employees and volunteers that work with children in the course of their jobs. The law has impacted everyone from public school teachers to youth sports volunteers and beyond. However, unlike most professionals involved in the education sector, college professors are actually exempt from the law, simply because most of them have students who are no longer minors.

Still, the State System of Higher Education have gone ahead and made background checks and child abuse clearances mandatory for professors at their member colleges, and those professors aren't happy with the change. In fact, the Association of Pennsylvania State College and University Faculties, the professors union for public state universities, is taking the case to Commonwealth Court, looking for an injunction to stop the background check requirement in its tracks.

At the moment, it's tough to tell whether the Association of Pennsylvania State College and University Faculties is more upset about the background checks themselves or about the fact that the State System of Higher Education implemented the new policy without negotiating with them first. The State System is supposed to run any background check policy proposals by the union before implementing them, so long as those background checks are not directly required by the Child Protective Services Law. The Child Protective Services Law exempts professors from background checks, so long as their only contact with minors is with prospective students on college visits, or enrolled students who just happen to still be under the age of 18.

The State System of Higher Education argues that professors could encounter minors in many other parts of their work as well, from leading on-campus summer camps to teaching courses that include dual-enrolled high school students. The professors union has countered this argument by essentially saying that such instances, while possible, are exceedingly rare and would still only apply to a small handful of professors. It would therefore be a waste of money, the APSCU says, to run these background checks on every single worker at all 14 state universities, especially considering the fact that the system is low on fund anyway.

So who's right and who's wrong? Ultimately, both sides have good arguments, and the point of contention here may be that the checks are being framed completely as a way to protect children from abuse or violation. But just because many college students aren't minors doesn't mean they aren't vulnerable, nor does it mean that professors don't have a position of authority and power that could feasibly be abused if wielded in the wrong hands. In short, while these checks and clearances might align with the Child Protective Services Law, they would ultimately just help to provide a safe place for all students, minor or not, to learn and grow, something that all colleges and universities should be ready and willing to provide.

Industry News

Tag Cloud
Recent Posts

Latest News

  • June 20 Repeat background checks are becoming more common, with companies in India leading the charge. What does this trend look like, and how can employers embrace it now to stay ahead of the curve?
  • June 19

    Every federal job involves a background check of some kind. These background checks and how they are evaluated vary based on job, department, and security clearance level.

  • June 18

  • June 14 Ban the box laws aim to improve opportunities for employment. Could they have the opposite effect instead?
  • June 13 Jacobs Petroleum Products is a regional petroleum company that operates throughout Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Ohio, and Maryland. Apart from their employees carrying much responsibility and have frequent contact with customers, the company’s hiring also tends to be segmented since individual store managers are responsible for hiring talent for their own stores. In this employment landscape, Jacobs Petroleum Products needed a reliable and effective way to screen its new hires for criminal infractions and other red flags.
  • June 12

    The University of Wisconsin System may tweak its hiring and reference check processes. The potential changes come after one of UW’s assistant deans was accused of sexual harassment.

  • June 07 Stories of abuse by coaches in youth sports leagues continue to crop up around the country, but rules and guidelines remain patchy and enforcement is often lacking. The struggle to implement an effective system continues nationwide.
  • June 07 Financial background checks, usually referred to as credit history checks, can be an effective way to find out if a candidate is fit to handle accounts, financial data, and other assets at your business.
  • June 06 The Society for Human Resource Management and the Charles Koch Institute recently commissioned a survey to find out how willing employers were to hire people with criminal records. The study indicates that managers, HR professionals, and employees themselves are becoming more comfortable with the idea of hiring and working with ex-offenders.
  • June 04 Are fingerprint background checks the gold standard for employee screening, or are they overhyped? We look at some of the myths and misconceptions surrounding these checks.