View Single Post
  #152 (permalink)  
Old Thu Sep 03, 2009, 03:11pm
M&M Guy M&M Guy is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Champaign, IL
Posts: 5,687
Camron, maybe you missed my initial point - I'm not against background checks in general. If there's a major problem with an individual, a background check can shed light on that problem and prevent possible future problems of the same issues. If the state says an offical who has a previous history of sexual abuse towards children should not officiate, then a law enforcement background check is certainly the best way to check for that.

One problem I have (and apparently Snaqs agrees as well) is with "unauthorized" people having access to private information, and unfortunately you are helping to prove my point. I don't have a problem with you refusing to work with someone because they have a background you do not agree with. That is certainly your right. What you haven't addressed is your willingness to tell others about that background in order to embarrass or outright prevent that official from working, based on your moral standard, even though they would qualify based on the state's standards. That doesn't simply address your right to not work with that individual, but now you are attempting to impose your standards on them, and their ability to officiate. As you said, and I agree, if you don't like the standard the state imposes, work to change it. But don't impose your own standards unilaterally on others, outside of current regulations. I think it's safe to say you wouldn't like the same done to you.

The other problem I have is whether this addresses a real problem. Your example is very unfortunate, but again, this is one specific incident. Just as important - would a background check have prevented it? Did this individual have a previous record of the same offense, or was this the first conviction? Do sports officials have the same or higher percentage of child sex abuse conviction rates over the general population? If so, then background checks on these convictions would be a good idea. Otherwise, it is at best a waste of money, and at worst a invasion of privacy. I'm not talking about "hiding" things that should be known, I'm talking about keeping things private that don't need to be known.
__________________
M&M's - The Official Candy of the Department of Redundancy Department.

(Used with permission.)
Reply With Quote