The recent proposal by the Office of Human Resources to require employees to self-report criminal convictions to University officials is a good idea — in principle. But how much of a practical difference it will make is unclear.
As of now, the University only requires applicants for employment to report past violations. The idea behind this proposal would be to continue this requirement into the actual employment of the applicants, therefore maintaining the safety of the University.
It definitely comes at a time when faculty impropriety is on people’s minds. Just this past fall, journalism professor Monty Cook resigned after allegations of improper contact with a student surfaced.
Yet Cook resigned quickly, and his actions became public even quicker. While this is not a perfect example as there was no conviction of a crime, it certainly demonstrates that unsafe behavior can be brought to light regardless of a formal policy.
And the fact that enforcement relies on self-reporting calls into question its potential effectiveness.
If a faculty member is convicted of a crime without the University knowing, one wonders whether it is wise to rely on the good faith of a delinquent individual to self-report their crime.
The University, if truly serious about requiring employees to report violations, likely needs to develop a more systematic reporting system that doesn’t include moral hazard. This proposal seems to only be symbolic. If it wasn’t meant to be, then a more rigorous policy with more teeth may be in order.
And if it isn’t a pressing concern, then why promulgate a half-hearted regulation? We imagine that employees convicted of crimes make up a small percentage of campus.
The real purpose behind a policy such as this would seem to be to increase the public trust in the University’s work force.
