Search News


Browse Archives

News

DNA Swab for Your Job

October 29, 2009

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

Many colleges now require criminal background checks of all new employees. But the University of Akron -- in what some experts believe is a first -- is not only requiring a criminal background check, but is stating that new employees must be willing to submit a DNA sample.

The requirement was added quietly and is now receiving attention -- and criticism -- because an adjunct faculty member at Akron quit this week, citing the new rules. "It's not enough that the university doesn't pay us a living wage, or provide us with health insurance, but now they want to sacrifice the sanctity of our bodies. No," said Matt Williams, who had been teaching four courses this semester in the communications and continuing education programs.

Williams is a vice president of the New Faculty Majority, a national organization created this year to advance adjunct interests, and he said that he felt it was time to take a stand and say that there are limits on how much those off the tenure track will take from their employers. While the criminal background checks and potential DNA sample apply to those hired for any position, Williams noted that adjuncts like himself are technically hired and rehired semester by semester, and thus could face this prospect term after term.

The new rules at Akron were adopted by the Board of Trustees in August, but most faculty members only learned of them in a recent e-mail list of announcements sent by the university to all employees. The rules state that background checks will be performed on all candidates selected for employment and that all offers will be "contingent on successful completion" of the check. Further, they state that all applicants "may be asked to submit a DNA sample." The rules specifically state that all employees, including faculty members, are covered.

Laura Martinez Massie, spokeswoman for Akron, said that the university would not comment on the resignation of Williams. She also said that to date, the university has not collected DNA and has no plans to do so, but is "merely reserving the right to do so."

Massie said that Akron wants "a safe environment for all of its students and employees" and that "DNA testing was included in the policy because there have been national discussions that indicate that in the future, reliance on fingerprinting will diminish and DNA for criminal identification will be the more prominent technology." If this happens, she said, Akron wants "the flexibility to adopt the new technology if we found it necessary."

While some colleges have added background checks or tightened screening procedures in the wake of incidents involving their employees, Akron faculty leaders said that they knew of no recent event involving employees that would have suggested a need for such a policy. "Any reasoning behind this is known to administrators only," said Stephen H. Aby, a librarian and professor of bibliography at Akron. Aby is also a past president of the university's chapter of the American Association of University Professors (which represents full-time professors at the university) and has been investigating the issue for the AAUP there.

Many faculty members "have been taken aback by the sweep and invasiveness" of the policy, Aby said. He added that the AAUP was not consulted in advance, and that some believe that imposing the rules now violates the union's contract. He said faculty members want to know why DNA would be collected, what would happen with the samples and how any information would be used -- and that the policy suggests complete discretion on all such matters would go to the administration.

While Aby said that he and his colleagues are bothered by the DNA requirement on principle, he also thinks it is a strategic mistake for the university.

"If a university adopts such an abhorrent policy, if you are competing for top faculty and these faculty members have options, I can't imagine this would be a good draw," he said.

Andy Brantley, president and CEO of the College and University Professional Association for Human Resources, said he had never heard of a college having a rule that would permit DNA testing of new employees. He said that, if asked about starting such a policy, he would advise a college to check the implications it might have for various federal laws, such as the Americans With Disabilities Act and the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act privacy rules.

While Brantley said that while he'd never heard of a DNA rule like the one at Akron, criminal background checks by colleges (without DNA checks) are not rare. "I know that there are lots of faculty that disagree" with such policies, but he said that they are appropriate. "As an employer, the first responsibility of any college is the safety of the community," he said.

The national AAUP's position on criminal background checks is that they should be required only when related to "particular obligations of specific positions." Policies like Akron's (even without the DNA requirement) in which all applicants must undergo checks are criticized as unnecessary invasions of privacy.

Reaction at Akron to the protest resignation of Williams has been mixed. Some comments in The Buchtelite, the student newspaper, were critical. One adjunct wrote that Williams had "screwed over his students," adding: "As an adjunct instructor, I feel his pain. I know what it's like to not have health insurance and to receive lesser pay for equal work. However, what you don't do is shoot yourself in the foot by resigning your position midway through."

Other comments were supportive. "His is an act of courage and principle. As long as we continue to accept without comment or protest the appalling conditions in which we work, conditions will never change. What kind of example do we show our students by refusing to do anything about our unprofessional working conditions?"

Williams said he "absolutely" had concerns about leaving his students in the middle of the semester. But he noted that American higher education appears unconcerned about the fact that adjuncts are part of "the revolving door" at most colleges, there one semester and gone the next. So while he's leaving in the middle of the semester, "it is not me who has created this system."

He also said he was showing students that there are principles worth fighting for, in this case at the expense of his job. (Williams does some freelance Web consulting and will now focus on that to replace his lost income.) "I'm not willing to give up my time and to be treated in this manner," he said. "It is unfortunate that students have become collateral damage."

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on DNA Swab for Your Job

  • For trustees, too?
  • Posted by RW , Prof at Large Public U. on October 29, 2009 at 7:00am EDT
  • It would be interesting to know if the criminal background check/DNA policy applies to the Board of Trustees. Perhaps I'm too cynical, but I suspect they'd argue they aren't technically employees, and are therefore exempt.

  • Posted by Maurice Meilleur at Unversity of Illinois on October 29, 2009 at 8:15am EDT
  • Andy Brantley: "As an employer, the first responsibility of any college is the safety of the community." This is squid ink. Akron has a police force, a fire department, and hospitals already. The first responsibility of any college is education. As an employer, its first responsibility is to hire qualified and competent scholars and teachers, and administrators and staff who can assist them. If a professional association for higher education HR personnel that claims to be "the leading voice regarding higher education workforce issues" thinks otherwise, those folks ought to find a new leader.

  • Thanks Steve Aby...and Matt Williams
  • Posted by SU-JJ at Syracuse University on October 29, 2009 at 8:15am EDT
  • The AAUP should definitely be in the forefront of this fight. I suppose an administration can reserve the right to do anything, and we as faculty can refuse to work there. The part-time faculty at University of Akron should consider a walk out. Imagine if that happened? I bet the administration just might back off. Just because DNA sampling may or might not be used in the future doesn't mean it should be used at will in a workplace. What about that right of privacy and protection from unreasonable search and seizure? Sounds as if University of Akron wants to be above the law, not ahead of some technological curve.

  • Orwell was right!
  • Posted by Barbara on October 29, 2009 at 8:45am EDT
  • Indeed, big brother is watching. What an intrusive invasion of privacy...where is the university's court order?

  • What?
  • Posted by Dr. T on October 29, 2009 at 8:45am EDT
  • Are adjuncts abused by the current system, and deserve more than they are getting? Yes. Is Williams abusing this DNA sampling "issue" as a grandstand for the cause? Yes.

  • Not a privacy or search-and-seizure issue
  • Posted by Dr. T on October 29, 2009 at 8:45am EDT
  • And by the way, the courts long ago determined that DNA sampling is not an invasion of privacy, nor does it require a search warrant.

  • Shared governance
  • Posted by Bob on October 29, 2009 at 8:45am EDT
  • Faculty are more than employees. They are full and equal participants in governing an academic institution. Nowhere in the story do I read that the faculty were ever consulted in instituting this new policy. If they were not consulted, do the faculty at Akron still have confidence in their leaders' ability to work collaboratively?

  • Rights
  • Posted by MWCH at Citizen on October 29, 2009 at 9:00am EDT
  • The "university" claims it is "reserving the right...." But is it in fact a "right?" Is this so-called institution of higher learning so high it is above the fourth amendment to the United States' constitution? "The right of the people to be secure in their persons... against unreasonable searches... shall not be violated...." The amendment requires that "no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." Is there anything more sacred to our biological personhood than our DNA? Upon probable cause, perhaps an institution can claim a right to the information. But in such a case, does it not already have the right and therefore not need this absurd and inflammatory DNA policy? This action will rightly be interpreted by prospective adjunct faculty employees as "Do Not Apply."

  • Posted by Baffled on October 29, 2009 at 9:00am EDT
  • I think that an employer's taking an employee's DNA is deplorable. But that's the deal breaker for Mr. Williams? Not the non-existent health insurance or worse-than-McDonald's wages? I simply do not understand adjuncts. He cannot be making more than $8000 a semester, but he calls it quits at a cheek swab? Is subjecting one's body to a q-tip anymore undignified than being among the most educated in the world and accepting peanuts for pay? For that matter, I am not surprised that the university would propose collecting DNA. If it can get individuals to sign on for next-to-nothing wages, is it so much of a leap to think that these persons would hand over their DNA as well? The whole situation is deplorable, but it takes two to tango.

  • Board of Trustees
  • Posted by handlon on October 29, 2009 at 9:00am EDT
  • In response to the comment about whether trustees are screened, my observation of trustee members is that their often dim-witted, self-serving, micro-managing agendas SHOULD be screened with background checks.

  • other issues
  • Posted by Jody on October 29, 2009 at 9:15am EDT
  • Have you thought about what happens if the insurance company requests the DNA or accesses the test and finds genetic disorders? How long before new hires (or old) are denied health insurance?

  • Andy is Right
  • Posted by Larry Robertson , Dir. of Compensation & HR Systems at Oklahoma City Community College on October 29, 2009 at 9:15am EDT
  • Andy Brantley is correct. We implemented background checks for all new employees and current employees receiving a promotion at OCCC two years ago and have not had any issues with faculty members or adjuncts. While our primary function of the college is to provide education, it is also to provide a safe and secure place to receive that education. In this day when crime is so high, we need these kinds of policies. Private industry has done background checks for decades. Higher Ed needs to come in line with the rest of the world on this issue.

    DNA collection is another matter and I also agree with Andy on this as well. Check to see if it conflicts with federal and state law.

    The committee that drew up our policy included faculty and this may be why we haven't had a issue with it.

  • What about GINA
  • Posted by Samantha , Administrator at MSU on October 29, 2009 at 9:30am EDT
  • The new Genetic Information Non-Discrimination Act applicable under Title VII in employment goes into effect in November. I hope Akron has taken a look at it's provisions and potential impact on use of DNA information and it's utilization in the context of employment.

  • DNA over the line
  • Posted by alb on October 29, 2009 at 9:30am EDT
  • Jody is right. How long before the DNA is used for purposes other than background checks. This is a deplorable, short-sighted policy.

  • DNA & Fingerprints
  • Posted by Justice Pro on October 29, 2009 at 10:15am EDT
  • Any employer who doesn’t do a complete background investigation including contact (not form letters) on a new employee and annual checks is asking for trouble. I have been an adjunct for many years and a former justice system employee, I was shocked that I have never been fingerprinted and that my driver’s license and driving record was never checked. You should know that there are some states that will allow persons convicted in criminal cases hide the convictions from public access, families and students and other staff has a right to know who is employed by an educational institution. Higher Educational employers need to check records annually at the time evaluations are completed for fulltime staff and regularly for adjunct staff; it’s the right thing to do.

  • Why only new employees?
  • Posted by DFS on October 29, 2009 at 10:15am EDT
  • Why?

  • Larry is wrong
  • Posted by Dr. RingDing on October 29, 2009 at 10:15am EDT
  • Larry Robertson wrote " Private industry has done background checks for decades. Higher Ed needs to come in line with the rest of the world on this issue."

    Yes, because U.S. private industry has demonstrated over and over that they have their employees' best interests in mind at all times.

  • Legality isn't only consideration
  • Posted by Sue Metzner , Director of Human Resources at Southern Vermont College on October 29, 2009 at 10:15am EDT
  • I frequently tell supervisors who ask me if an action or practice is against the law, that just because something is not prohibited by law doesn't mean you should do it. The law provides the "floor" beneath which you may not sink. Good HR practice involves trying to stay way above that floor. Why write something into a policy in case you might want to institute that practice in the future?? Policies can and should be changed as society and organizational needs change. Furthermore, to include something as volatile as DNA testing -- what were they thinking? Why not include waterboarding too, just in case?

    I don't know but I suspect the CUPA-HR president was quoted out of context. My guess is that he was defending criminal background investigation and not DNA testing.

  • I think that Sue's right.
  • Posted by DFS on October 29, 2009 at 10:30am EDT
  • So, I'll ask you directly, Sue. Why only new employees?

    Doesn't equal protection ensure that we are above that "floor"?

  • Because it's easier
  • Posted by Sue Metzner , Director of Human Resources at Southern Vermont College on October 29, 2009 at 11:00am EDT
  • In my experience, when you change a pre-employment requirement you don't go back and retroactively apply it to all employees, e.g. we used to require five years of experience and now we require ten. However, if you were truly concerned about safety and you believed that some form of test was required to protect students from dangerous employees, I think you would want to apply the policy uniformly on the grounds that current employees are no less likely to be dangerous than new ones. But, as this controversy shows, you had better have a very solid case for doing so and advance discussion and agreement from faculty and staff on the merits.

  • DNA testing of higher ed employees
  • Posted by feudi pandola , FAO on October 29, 2009 at 11:00am EDT
  • I have to agree with most posters here. DNA testing as a matter of policy is a bad idea. I do agree that we should screen faculty more closely and that there should be some sort of annual reporting regarding criminal background checks. Look at what's happened at Penn-Wharton, for example. There have been three faculty members there convicted of crimes ranging from the sexual abuse of children to murder in just the past two years. Is this history just plain bad luck, or does it indicate that we need to somehow keep closer tabs of the outside activities of professors?

     

  • Early Adopter of Background Check Technology
  • Posted on October 29, 2009 at 11:15am EDT
  • UA has not actually required any employees to submit to the DNA test, up until now, the new policy was quietly put in place to reserve the right to conduct DNA tests as the practice of criminal background checks transitions from fingerprinting to a more reliable DNA test. The UA is trying to be progressive with criminal background checks and ensuring campus safety. Reliance on newer technology by forensic investigators, such as affordable DNA testing, is replacing the long held confidence that was once attributed to fingerprinting. At the same time, there has been an increased reporting of criminal activity perpetrated by university and college employees and a pressure for higher education administrators to ensure safety on campus

     

    I can appreciate the mixed reviews the policy has had on campus –I am an alumnus of UA and my partner works at the University. Taking the time to learn more about the policy and its intended use, I personally would not have a problem with submitting to the DNA –after all I provided a DNA sample to the National Geographic’s Human Genome project, which was endorsed and paid for by my employer. For me UA’s DNA policy is to ensure campus security and I would NOT oppose campus security initiatives any sooner than I would oppose Hate Crime legislation. But in the context of an existing adversarial relationship between the UA and adjunct professors, it certainly proved to be the straw that broke the camels back and cause an adjunct professor to resign –but I have to question his professionalism and academic ethics for resigning mid-semester.

    Another article posted by CBSNEWS (see link at the end) references a long list of laws that prohibit the access of individual DNA, genetic and medical history from employers that can be used to unjustly adversely impact employees. Because of this, all medical and current background checks are conducted by third party vendors, who are held to professional standards and subject to prosecution if they disclose any information that is not permissible under the law. That said, ever since they started mapping the human genome, reaching new heights after the first cloned sheep, legislation are legislation has been piled up to protect people from their own DNA. There is DNA in urine. If employers wanted to use DNA for malice and actually had access to the information, they could do it every time they required someone to "piss in a cup" (or when they require employees to take a health screening on WebMD -which has become a standard practice in any large company before enrolling in the company offered health insurance).

    For those who say its an invasion of privacy and it could be misused . . . people complained fingerprint background checks were demoralizing and an attack on their integrity; people complained that urine drug testing would be used to check if a woman was pregnant or had reach menopause, as well as, to check for STD and genetic defects; WebMD opposition currently insists that companies will use the information to target individuals who are over-weight, have high blood pressure or cholesterol, depressed or occasionally enjoy a frothy beverage or fatty foods in excess. But misuse of medical and background check information is not prevalent, and there has not been enough evidence to substantiate that progress in background check technology has opened a flood gate of human rights and privacy violations.

    I find this to be more of a case of people afraid of new technology that they don't understand being used in innovative ways. After all, when revolving current electricity (the difference between AC and DC) was first generated by humans, the opposition created the electric chair and started frying convicted felons as public spectacles to demonstrate the dangers of AC electricity. What was more dangerous, the electricity or those in opposition to the form of electricity. Quite frankly, when you consider identity theft and the alternative of using credit reports and database criminal record searches to identify criminal activity (try googling your own name), I would prefer you use something that is uniquely me, such as my DNA, to verify my background. Think about all the innocent people that have been detained, questioned for hours or refused access to board a flight because their name was similar to someone else in a DB. I would prefer taking my luck with a cotton-swab. Say Awwwwh!

     

    http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/10/28/taking_liberties/entry5438012.shtml?tag=pt1318;continueButton#addcomm

  • Posted by K on October 29, 2009 at 11:15am EDT
  • I was fingerprinted as an undergrad returning to my junior high to work in the office for summer school. What's wrong with that? You come in contact with students on a regular basis, you SHOULD have a background check. Could you imagine if a professor was accused of rape and the university discovered that s/he had been convicted of rape before being hired as a prof? How embarrassing would that be.

    DNA, though, is too far.

  • Thanks, Sue, for the quick reply. I agree. Completely logical.
  • Posted by DFS on October 29, 2009 at 11:30am EDT
  • Now, let's pursue that (correct) logic. Since we're concerned about safety, do a DNA test on everyone on campus.

    This of course should include students.

    I'm not immediately confidant about the population statistics, but insofar as violent crimes are relevant, sometimes students are the perpetuators.

    Let's do them, too. Then, there should be no reasonable objections anywhere, setting aside any constitutional parameters.

    That's another discussion.

  • Posted by LAJerry on October 29, 2009 at 12:15pm EDT
  • Reminds me of a news story I read yesterday - parents in a town in England are now banned from accompanying their own children onto certain city playgrounds, unless the parent has been through a background check. Parents will have to watch their children from afar, outside of the perimeter fence.

    Such is the world we now live?

  • DNA is more than just identification
  • Posted by Idealist on October 29, 2009 at 12:15pm EDT
  • I am not a jail house lawyer, but at what point did we suspend the Fourth Amendment? I believe that even suspects of a crime do not have to surrender DNA samples without a warrant from the judicial system. For the group who believe DNA is equal to finger prints for identification purposes, you might want to rethink giving up your genetic road map to entities that do not have YOUR best interests in mind.

    When someone states “we reserve the right,” they mean they want you to give up yours. In this case they want you to give up your right to privacy. DNA data bases may be used in many marvelous ways and at a different time may be used in many very unscrupulous ways.

    For those who believe that giving up their liberties will allow them a safer world, you are merely building glass houses.

  • There goes the savings
  • Posted by Hannah , Ex-Adjunct on October 29, 2009 at 12:30pm EDT
  • I can't see the logic here. At $40 or so, the standard fingerprint test will reveal any criminal convictions or even arrests. DNA is a factor in less than 30 percent of crimes, including murder, but all arrestees are fingerprinted. In addition, many school employees convicted of sex crimes who get "outed" are long-term employees who often get moved around from district to district to avoid the expense of firing and lawsuits surrounding a potentially dangerous teacher, administrator, or permanent classified employee. To add to the illogic of this measure, the average court-acceptable DNA test costs around $1000. Adjuncts being unconscionably underpaid and exploited so that colleges can balance their budgets are suddenly worth a $1000 test??? What is a poor district to do, when the typical annual 30 percent turnover of adjuncts makes "protecting" students from violent freeway flyers a burdensome expense? LOL.

  • the plantation mentality lives
  • Posted by bradley bleck , English instructor at Spokane Falls CC on October 29, 2009 at 1:00pm EDT
  • I suspect that most of those trustees come from the business community where they can pretty much get their way with this sort of thing. Sadly, though, because allowing such a swab could be seen as "voluntary," because you don't HAVE to do it, it is generally viewed as constitutional. I like to see it, though, as being coercion, as in you must give up your rights protected by the Fourth Amendment if you want this job. More sadly still, individuals can sign away constitutional rights.

  • Reserve and the right
  • Posted by hoppinmadjunct , lecturer on October 29, 2009 at 1:45pm EDT
  • This DNA policy is simply another brick in the wall between those who make decisions and those decideded upon. This university administration, like more and more of them now, wants to be the deciders in whatever situation might arise against whichever of its employees.

  • This Is Really Exciting!!!
  • Posted by Frizbane Manley on October 29, 2009 at 4:45pm EDT
  • Two Things …

    First, for the past eight years here at the Manley Center for DNA Typological Sequencing we have been studying and matching DNA profiles for a large number of plant and animal species. As you would guess, natural selection has sorted academics in a manner that makes some more suitable to be scholars, others to be staff, and still others to be administration. Here are just a few of our almost perfect matches …

    Scholars/Chimpanzees (99.5%) … Adjunct Professors/Missouri Mules (98.2%) … Low-to-mid-level Administration/Musk Ox (97.8%) … Upper-level Administration/Banana Slugs (99.3%).

    Needless to say, the Manley Center will attempt to purchase the rights to the University of Akron DNA data – endowing a few chairs at UA just for good measure -- as soon as they have been collecting it for five years.

    Second, since we (homo sapiens) are all made in God’s image, we have been trying to compare DNA samples of humans with samples of surrogates of the Almighty. We’ve got plenty of humans at our disposal, but the Almighty has been a bit reclusive.

    As surrogates we tried using subsets of homo sapiens within which there are a large number of individuals who think they are gods. Our first subset consisted of CEOs of major automobile corporations, but that didn’t work. Then we tried CEOs of major financial institutions, but that was a bust. What do you think … will chairmen and chairwomen of college and university boards of directors serve as adequate surrogates for the Almighty? We need your help.

    P.S. You might be interested to know that we are hard at work studying DNA differences between scientists, engineers, musicians, journalists, attorneys, social “scientists,” MBAs, educational specialists, etc. We’ll keep you reformed.

     

     

     

     

  • Fingerprints & DNA
  • Posted by Justice Pro on October 29, 2009 at 5:30pm EDT
  • I forgot the Students...my state asks students about Criminal conduct on the Application for Admission , I think that is the right thing to do, other students and staff have a reasonable expectation of safety, look at VA Tech..and if they are on Probation or Parole, they should be denied admission. I had worked at a CC and we were sure some students were in class to learn of crime detection processes. This has been a great discussion and FYI many states are adding DNA to the offender base, I had forgotten about the PSU case where an instructor has murdered three people and Texas let him move without advising anyone, that’s a case that doesn't pass the smell test. The HR people are correct it’s hard to change policy but there is noting that stops annual records checks at the time of evaluation.

  • strange format
  • Posted by R. A. Paul on October 29, 2009 at 6:30pm EDT
  • I have no idea why my earlier post appeared as a series of red 'clickable' lines. It didn't leave my computer looking like that. Sorry.

  • Posted by Char (PSI Tutor:Mentor) on October 30, 2009 at 5:15am EDT
  • It's disturbing that we are creating a hegemony of one particular type of people to educate the rest of us, who will remain to question the status quo...?

  • Posted by jim on October 30, 2009 at 5:15am EDT
  • R.A.Paul wonders why his post appeared in red, clickable lines. I don't know either but it always happens when I copy something from a previous post to paste into my post. I stopped doing the copy directly and now if necessary, I copy to Word and then copy to my post.

    Concerning the real topic at hand, I understand why an instructor would quit if his considered opinion of his students is that they are "collateral damage" in his fight to be noticed. I agree that a significant gesture is important if it will have an effect but I don't believe that UA will change their policy because Williams quit.
    And I am tired of hearing about the appalling and unprofessional conditions under which adjuncts work. A lack of health insurance is a national disgrace, not a failing of the adjunct system. Equal pay for equal work is a really, really good thing but it is not true anywhere else in the world so why should we be exempted? I think that wanting equal pay is just a matter of wanting to be thought of as "as good as them" where "them" are the tenured, full-time, highly-paid, universally loved and respected faculty. Like everyone else, I think that some colleges pay adjuncts pitifully and that should be rectified. Some colleges pay very well and I can't complain about those.
    But why is the best job in the world (for me, at least) merely "a job" whose most important attribute is the remuneration? I suspect that what I get paid (around $1200 for a 4-credit, 11-week course) is less than what I see in posts to IHE. But "it ain't the money, it IS the work".
    As for DNA testing, I am not sure how different it is from fingerprinting. I suppose that fear of DNA testing falls into the same category as the people who first thought that the photography camera was "stealing their soul". There's the problem of mis-use of the information (cited by another poster) but I hope that problem can be solved, technologically.

  • Posted by bb on October 30, 2009 at 3:15pm EDT
  • If this is "truly" for the safety of the community, which seems to be what the default scapegoat falls to these days, then why not background check and sample the student DNA? And why they are at it, if a guest speaker comes to campus (and gets paid) why not the guest speaker?

  • scapegoating faculty
  • Posted by citizen on October 31, 2009 at 5:15pm EDT
  • What is significant is the hostility of the administration toward staff. It is an active hostility and with no reason, faculty are generalized, characterized as dangerous, suspect, and requiring investigation by gathering DNA sample.

    USA is treading on very thin ice when none of you recognize what is occurring, say nothing of the fact that 1/2 of the university teaching jobs are low paid part time adjunct. Higher education is being devalued and as a result, USA will suffer poverty and dis-ease. Like the person said, he does not even receive a living wage and this is the case for about 1/2 of the college and university teachers in the USA. Spread the word, this low-cost adjunct system of hire is now super-sized. Students are rankled when they get low paid part time instructor with no office and whom often suffers great discomfort and intimidation in their hire position. The administration must be under the illusion that they are royalty and can dictate at whim while paying out saltine crackers for wage. The system is so advanced in being this out of alignment, it is the very definition of depressing and heart rending. Cry for your countries, Americans, for it has fallen.

  • Conditions
  • Posted by Liam on October 31, 2009 at 5:15pm EDT
  • First, UA's action would have to comply with existing law on the use of genetic information.

    Further, as an incentive for UA (and other organizations and companies who wish to use DNA samples) to have serious control procedures in place, they should be required to indemnify fully against any loss or damage (including reasonable fees of counsel) incurred by anyone whose DNA information is leaked or misused. The institutions should also carry reasonable amounts of liability insurance to cover such indemnities. Then the insurers could incentivize their clients to have good controls and procedures.

    An entity that is not willing to do this is demonstrating a lack of sincerity of purpose. It's a good place to start for anyone seeking to dissect an institution's adoption of this stance. I hope reporters and others will make suitable inquiries along this line: "What policies do you have in place to indemnify fully against any loss or damage (including reasonable fees of counsel) incurred by anyone whose DNA information is leaked or misused?" Ask. Ask. Ask. Demand answers, on the record. If they say they don't have such a policy, ask why not? Ask why it should not be unreasonable for them not to have such a policy. Ask if they've consulted their insurance providers to see if their actions would be covered by insurance. Et cet. So many reporters and investigators and advocates fail to ask these basic questions. Insurance runs the world, even before goverment. Any institution that is adopting a new process should be considering its potential exposure and insurance coverage therefor as a significant part of its deliberations.

  • To Citizen
  • Posted by Hannah , Ex-Adjunked on November 1, 2009 at 6:00am EST
  • It's actually over two thirds of faculty that are contingent faculty in higher education. Full-time faculty won't be tested because they are not "new" faculty. Again, I can't see any college or university spending $1000 per DNA test, ( for a contingent, no less!) when DNA is a factor in less than one third of crimes, $40 fingerprints are taken from all arrestees, and most criminals in higher education are those shunted from institution to institution--with terrific recommendations of course--to avoid the high costs and lawsuits involved in firing a tenured instructor or administrator.

    The error UA and any other college makes in implementing such a policy is that American citizens "willing" to work evenunder the most abysmal an exploitative conditions has a tipping point. I"m hoping that this policy will finally bring up to the surface for more and more contingent faculty the unconscionably, horribly abusive, and disrespected conditions under which they teach and cause them to yell a collective @#$% YOU!! to this university and colleges nation-wide before leaving this laughably called "profession" for good.

  • Posted by Tim , Prof. on November 1, 2009 at 12:30pm EST
  • Administrators are stupid people, and given any power, they will almost always do stupid things. What else is there to say here?

  • Petition Against DNA Sampling Policy at The University of Akron
  • Posted by Matt Williams at New Faculty Majority on November 2, 2009 at 6:00am EST
  • Please take a moment to sign the petition against the DNA sampling policy at The University of Akron.

    http://www.petitionspot.com/petitions/universityofakrondna/

  • DNA Confidential from Science Progress
  • Posted by Dan Kern , Instructor/English: Dev Ed Reading at East Central College on November 4, 2009 at 3:00pm EST
  • FYI from Science Progress:

    From: apratt@scienceprogress.org Science Progress.

    In three interlocking features, Natalie Ram explains how state crime labs collect and analyze DNA evidence, comparing results to profiles stored in the FBI’s Combined DNA Index System. Certain “partial” and “familial” matches found in DNA databases can implicate an offender’s close genetic relatives as possible perpetrators of a crime. But there are no consistent federal rules on how to conduct such searchers and report findings. Her report and the accompanying interactive map represent the first effort to catalog in a comprehensive manner state policies on these search and matching techniques.

    DNA Confidential
    By Natalie Ram
    Most states refrain from prescribing rules governing partial match reporting or familial searching in statute, regulation, or well-publicized memoranda. This report represents the first effort to catalog in a comprehensive manner state policies and practices regarding partial match reporting and familial searching. http://www.scienceprogress.org/2009/11/dna-confidential/

    Interactive Map: State Policies for DNA Crime Databases Vary Widely
    By Natalie Ram
    Certain “partial” and “familial” matches found in DNA databases can implicate an offender’s close genetic relatives as possible perpetrators of a crime. But there are no consistent federal rules on how to conduct such searchers and report findings. http://www.scienceprogress.org/2009/11/map-state-dna-policies/

    The Terms for a Search
    By Natalie Ram
    State crime labs can collect and analyze DNA evidence, comparing results to profiles stored in the FBI’s Combined DNA Index System. Here’s how the process works. http://www.scienceprogress.org/2009/11/the-terms-for-a-search/

  • Chilling effect?
  • Posted by DisenchantedCandidate , PhD candidate at Kent on November 4, 2009 at 3:00pm EST
  • I believe it was "bb" who pointed out that it's not only faculty who should be background checked, but everyone who works on campus or attends classes--why single out faculty? Don't teachers have a right to be protected from nutjob students or staff? And staff from faculty or student nutjobs?

    Bottom line--any university that wants to "reserve the right" to swab my cheek is not going to be my employer. I actually have an open application at Akron as I write this; had I known about this policy when I applied for the job, I wouldn't have bothered. Do I have something to hide? Of course not. Does that mean I'm willing to hand over my genetic profile information to a bunch of people I don't even know? HELL no.

    Will be interested to see whether the policy has a chilling effect on the number of applicants for upcoming postings. I have some friends who work there... will be keeping in close touch with them over the next year or so.