The University of Akron may soon revise a controversial policy that says new hires, at the university’s discretion, may be asked to submit a DNA sample or fingerprints for a federal criminal-background check.
Ted A. Mallo, vice president and general counsel at Akron, plans to recommend to the institution’s Board of Trustees that references to DNA testing be stripped from the new policy on criminal-background checks and replaced with language that would put new hires on notice that law-enforcement agencies may require them to provide “additional information” for such checks.
In a letter on Thursday, Mr. Mallo informed the chairman of the university’s Faculty Senate—which unanimously passed a resolution urging officials to rethink the policy—of the proposed revision he intends to recommend. The board will meet to consider it on November 20.
The policy in question, believed to be the first of its kind, was announced in late October. It thrust the college into the national spotlight, and Akron officials have been under fire ever since from faculty members and others who strongly question the rationale for the policy, as well as its legality in light of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008. In his letter, Mr. Mallo said he was recommending the revision, in part, to “avoid any real or perceived conflict” with the federal law, part of which goes into effect on November 21.
A university spokeswoman said the revised language was also supposed to make it clear that law-enforcement agencies would be left to determine what they needed from new hires to conduct background checks.
“It is simply not necessary that the university rule make any reference to any specific identification method, or whether a method might include or not include Social Security numbers, fingerprints, DNA, or any other identification method or process that a law-enforcement agency may require in order to provide a responsive criminal-background check,” wrote Laura M. Massie, the spokeswoman.
The Faculty Senate’s resolution says the original policy “poses a serious threat to the personal privacy of university employees” and is “far broader than warranted” for a university that has a “legitimate interest in providing a safe environment for its students, employees, and campus visitors.” Among other things, the resolution notes that the Faculty Senate was not consulted before the policy’s adoption and that -the policy is likely to keep the college from recruiting top-notch employees.
“I don’t think this is the kind of publicity that the university benefits from,” said William D. Rich, an associate professor of law at Akron. “One of the various unfortunate aspects of this is that it draws attention from the many positive things that are happening here. It steps on our message.”
Mr. Rich, who introduced the resolution in the Faculty Senate, said he did not object to the new language that the board will consider. “This takes the university out of the position of asking for the fingerprints or the DNA sample, " said Mr. Rich, one of the policy’s strongest critics. The proposed revision also would avoid violating the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act, Mr. Rich said, because the law applies to employers and not to law-enforcement agencies.
Mr. Mallo wrote that the DNA provision had been included in the original policy because Akron believed that in the future, DNA tests, not fingerprinting, would be routine during federal background checks. However, Mr. Rich said he thought the institution was “addressing a problem that was not at all imminent, and who knows whether it ever will be?”
The university maintains that despite the proposed revision, the intent behind the policy has not changed. Wrote Ms. Massie: “It was never the intent of the university to ask for or receive fingerprints or a DNA sample.” The policy was meant only to inform new hires of the possibility that such things could be requested by an agency for the background check, she wrote.
