preston, ton, ton, ton, on, on, on????
echo, o, o, o, o?

Left by adam on March 10th, 2008 at 2:16 pm

Dang, Robbie!
I hate it when you knock me over with a feather like that.

Left by no2liberals on March 10th, 2008 at 5:15 pm

its called the 4th amendment. unreachable search and seisure means more than just your papers (as implied in the amendment), its also been extended to include your person (dna and fingerprints) and such. and as this is a government institution. not hard to put the math together on that one.

[Editor --- Except that there is absolutely nothing unreasonable about it. Just as there's nothing unreasonable about requiring all sorts of other professions to undergo similar job requirements. Nice try though.]

Left by kit churchill on March 11th, 2008 at 12:18 pm

it is unreasonable.
the courts, even those in texas, have ruled that dragnets like this are unconsititutional. its unreasonable because there is no probable cause for the government to investigate its teachers. or any other government employee for that matter. a private company doesn’t have that restriction, but for the state to do it constitutes a de facto police investigation which should be subject to warrants and court involvement.
it becomes reasonable when a school or agency has a reason to believe that one of its agents has done something wrong and a past crime may be relevant. outside of that, its plain and simply the government writing all of your information down so that have record of it in case you do something wrong later.

Left by kit churchill on March 11th, 2008 at 1:13 pm

kit,
via your arguments criminal backgoundd checks and drug screening should all be banned for employment in the military, the police forces, fire departments, and generally public services as a collective.

please site your texas precedent, or one from anywhere else. additionally please tell us what, if any, distinctions you draw between an investigation and an employment screening.

it seems you favor a reactive criminal justice policy here while many would prefer a more proactive approach. the justification for the latter is prioritizing our childrens safety over the misperceived offenses taken by some who aren’t being investigated. they’re CHOOSING an employer.

Left by adam on March 11th, 2008 at 3:48 pm

The Texas cases did not have to do with employment drug screening, we in fact have laws that require companies of more than 15 people to offer some anti-drug use policy.

For more national relevance you can look here:

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/laborprof_blog/2008/03/the-constitutio.html

or this SCOTUS decision:

“The U.S. Constitution does not prohibit drug testing of employees.
However, in the U.S. Supreme Court case of Treasury Employees v. Von Raab, 489 U.S. 656 (1989), the high court ruled that requiring
employees to produce urine samples constituted a “search” within the
meaning of the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Therefore, all such testing must meet the “reasonableness” requirement of the Fourth Amendment (which protects citizens against “unreasonable” searches and seizures).

There was also a ruling in West Virginia similar to the Oregon case above. Where these overlap with the case for teachers is that it is not enough to use a social problem like drug use or any other criminal offense, widespread or not, to conduct criminal background or drug tests on employees after they’re hired.

What these also have in common is that they are dragnets. Designed to subject all in order to catch a few. Why is this a problem? Said best by a Supreme Court Judge:

Innocent people do have something to hide: their private life. The
“right to be left alone” is, in the words of the late Supreme Court
Justice Louis Brandeis “the most comprehensive of rights and the
right most valued by civilized men.”

Left by kit churchill on March 27th, 2008 at 1:04 pm

I have no objection to requiring the data required for background checks at the time of employment. If you choose not to submit, you are not hired. Period. However, my ojection is to the requirement AFTER employment and “lifetime ” certification.

Left by Marissa on April 15th, 2008 at 9:39 am

Please include Mrs. Hightower, chemistry teacher at Samuel Clemens High School in Schertz, TX, in any investigation that may occur.
She could qualify for witch of the year, or worse, bitch of the year. She sucks…

Left by figure it out, genius... on August 15th, 2008 at 2:38 am

I am a teacher and I think it is a total invasion of my privacy. I have no criminal background, and I have nothing to hide. I have lots to protect. It isn’t the argument that some teachers with criminal backgrounds (felony) will be flushed out, it is much more about putting personal info randomly into the hands of any government agency. I don’t want Big Brother having access to my personal info. without a justified cause. It basically assumes all teachers are guilty of crimes which would make them unfit for the classroom. Guilty until proven innocent. What a nice ring in a free society. Whoops, I forgot. We no longer live in a free society. We are no longer here to enjoy life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We live in a who-gives-a-crap society where there is no real value to life, and so why should we really care about liberty or the pursuit of happiness.
Why don’t the police just randomly fingerprint everyone who walks the streets. You idiots. There are more pediphiles walking our streets than there are teaching in our classrooms, and there are other ways to find them without requiring all teachers to give their fingerprints.
If I were Jewish and I taught in the classroom, would I then need to wear the Star of David on my shirt?
Is everyone who has a felony conviction outside of the realm of rehabilitation and therefore unfit to teach?

Left by Kloneil35 on December 11th, 2008 at 6:54 pm