I'm just wondering how deviant a guy can be working in "A" with 35 some players and probably a few hundred fans in the stands. While I don't condone any type of illegal behavior...sounds like a money making scheme to me...it's not necessary.

I think this New York City detective should be placed on the "do not assign" list:

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/01....prostitution/

And how does a teacher, in front of 30 students and within a short distance of a dozen administrators act in a deviant manner?

Or, how about the basketball coach in Lynwood, Washington, or the softball coach in Spokane, or the soccer coach in Florida...they all ply their trade in front of multiple players, parents and fans.

They find a way, outside of the arena, to have contact with someone with whom they have built a trust due to their position and contact with them. Be it in a parking lot, locker room, coaches home, player's home...or in one case in Spokane, on a public sidewalk...the truly deviant find a way.

Background checks won't completely put an end to a deviant's behavior, but they will help limit his contact with potential victims and alert the public to the potential danger.

Excellent point.

Can you tell my why my vcr keeps blinking "12:00" ? Wait a minute..that's not a computer thing, is it? ;)

JJ

Garth B & mbyron have hit the nail on the head.

Based on being invloved in law enforcement for the last eighteen years, and officiating for the last seven (though this is my first post!:D ), background checks are a "necessary evil" and first defense for many professions and avocations.

I'd rather be discussing the merits of patent leather!

AR

If I read the news reports correctly, what is being done with the MLB umpires is not (just) a criminal background check. It involves interviewing neighbors, asking about affiliations (e.g. KKK), etc. In other words, it is a rumor-mongering check. JMO.

While I agree that some of the questions apparently being asked are, themselves, questionable, remember that the background check of MLB umpires isn't designed just to turn up a criminal past but also any sign of vulnerability to bribes or blackmail. That, like a security clearance, requires a look into possible affiliations with a variety of groups, causes and people.

What if the umpire was a "not out" homosexual?

I have a friend who was back when he finished grad school and applied for a security clearance to do some government work. Someone called me and asked me about the guy's sexual activity. Would that be appropriate in the umpires' background check?

Get a load of this. Now Jesse Jackson's in the act.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,327348,00.html

If the story is accurate, that's the most sensical thing I've ever heard come out of Rev. Jackson's mouth.

I'm sure that exact question is one of the reasons WUA wants to negotiate the background check questions.

Reportedly, MLB feels they need to question any area that could indicate an umpire is vulnerable to bribes or blackmail. An out-of-the-closet gay man would not, by the fact he is gay, be so subjected. However, could a closeted gay man be vulnerable to such activities. I don't know. I supposes it could depend on the reaspons he remains closeted and how emotionally and financially attached he is to remaining closeted.

My very best friend with whom my wife and I shared a house during grad school is an out-of-the-closet gay man. With that experience and having been a music major, taking several drama courses, making part of my living acting for three years, and working in the ad biz in San Francisco...I am not unfamiliar with both sides of that issue. (I know, I know, I'm guilty of stereotyping. Sorry.)

Despite what I tell my students, I don't have all the answers.:D I'm not sure where I would land on this one at the present time.

For a long time, homosexuality automatically disqualified men from certain sensitive positions, blackmail being the primary concern. (Remember also that until fairly recently, homosexuality was considered a mental aberration or even an illness, so it was felt that applicants might be unreliable, whether or not the job had a sensitive nature. The American Psychological Association has since changed its position on homosexuality, but privately many psychiatrists and psychologists still hold the older position.) A man known to be homosexual would not be hired by the FBI, the CIA, the State Department, and so on. During World War II, a man could avoid service by what was called "declaring himself," though in doing so he took great risk. This certainly does not mean that homosexuals did not work in sensitive jobs or fight in WW II.

It is suspected that when Joseph N. Welch said to Senator Joseph McCarthy, "I should say, Mr. Senator, that a pixie is a close relative of a fairy. Shall I proceed, sir? Have I enlightened you?" he was trying to needle McCarthy about rumors that McCarthy was homosexual. After all, McCarthy had sent Roy Cohn and G. David Shine to "investigate" subversives working in Europe, but most of their "work" consisted of partying together. In the 1950s, exposure of McCarthy as homosexual would have forced him out of the public eye.

Officially, homosexuals are now protected from discrimination in hiring.

Officially.

Only in some states, and not federally.

Then it never happens...if they're protected...whatever.