By Jeanine Poggi

Concerned Big Brother is tapping your phone line, reading your e-mails or keeping tabs on library records – well your potential employers may also be playing private eye.Last week University professors were outraged after learning a new policy will make criminal and educational background checks mandatory for candidates applying for faculty positions. This policy, however, is not unusual, with background checks for potential employees increasing both in and out of higher education.Last year 80 percent of employers conducted criminal background checks on potential employees, up from 51 percent in 1996, according to the Society for Human Resource Management. Of these employers, 35 percent did credit checks, up from 19 percent in 1996, and 79 percent checked previous work history. In higher education, background checks became especially prominent when Pennsylvania State University discovered a member of their faculty had been on parole for murders he committed in another state when he was a teenager, according to an article in The Chronicle of Higher Education. The sensational case prompted universities nationwide to evaluate their hiring practices, and led a Pennsylvania legislator to introduce a bill requiring criminal background checks for professors hired by universities and colleges in the state.While the undisclosed criminal history of candidates, misrepresentation of faculty credentials or experience is not totally foreign in higher education, such incidents are rare, Robert Kreiser from the American Association of University Professors (AAUP), said.”It [the murder] happened years earlier and he served time,” he said. “He served ably as a professor and he probably would have been denied appointment if the information was found out before he was hired. People try to make policy on the most outlandish situations.” This has not stopped many universities from delving into the personal lives of their faculty. Colleges and universities have easy access to commercial programs that supply personal information – criminal records, litigation history, worker-compensation claims, marriage records, bankruptcy liens and court judgments; credit-card history, airline use, certain telephone records, bank-account histories, pharmacy records and even records of medical visits. While the University has not made use of such services in the past, an agreement was formed with ADP Screening and Selection Services on June 22, 2005 that will make some checks mandatory. Melissa Connolly, vice president for University Relations said last week that the University will only be taking advantage of ADP to conduct criminal and educational checks. The criminal checks will include motor vehicle and driving records. When conducting criminal background checks the consumer-reporting agency searches for misdemeanors and felons reported in an applicant’s current state of residence. However, if the candidate was previously convicted of a crime in another state, this search would not reveal these convictionsWhen asked if credit history or any other similar checks are or will be conducted for new employees, Provost Herman Berliner said last month that the University is firmly against such checks. “We are not interested in people’s personal life,” he said.However, to the background investigation authorization and release provided with the employment application reads: “I authorize all government agencies, state department of motor vehicles, corporations, companies, educational institutions, persons, law enforcement agencies, workers’ compensation agencies, criminal, civil and federal courts, and former employers to release information they may have about me and release them from any liable from doing so.” ADP conducted 4,861,435 background checks in 2005, 10 percent of which contained discrepancies. Of the 1,493,091 criminal record checks conducted, 5 percent of candidates had a criminal record in the last seven years. Also, 49 percent of the 333,472 reference verifications, education and/or credential checks, revealed a difference of information between what the applicant provided and what the source reported. Six percent of the information differences were received with negative remarks from the source in regard to the applicant. According to the AAUP, however, many criminal records are imprecise and the context of the conviction, which is essential to understand the information, is rarely provided. “If you get information there is going to be the urge to use that information,” Kreiser said. “Some of the information may be irrelevant to appointing a professor and accusations. When accusations become the basis to deny appointment it becomes a problem.” “Criminal background searches are an invasion of privacy and there are too many downfalls of using them when hiring professors. It is taking a blunder-bus approach. You can compare it to the Bush administration. Because they think people can use telephones and the Internet for conspiracies they should search them. But this is insufficient justification,” Kreiser said.