EDITORIAL
Maine Times' view, written by its managing editor
Digging in deeper
Where the Legislature is concerned, state departments are supposed to provide
neutral, unbiased information. This doesn't mean departments can't be
advocates for legislation; one expects the Department of Environmental
Protection to state the reasons why a water quality standard should be
adopted. But advocacy must have limits.
How far the Department of Education has strayed from that standard was
clear in last Thursday's work session with the Education Committee over
the fingerprinting law so strongly resented by teachers. For three hours,
committee members heard from no one else, yet the department is the most
uncompromising advocate of a draconian law addressing a problem no one can
say for sure exists.
The national fad for fingerprinting teachers as a bulwark against child
abuse has already been shown to be dubious. There's no evidence teachers
are any more likely to molest young children than other adults, including
day care workers, doctors, lawyers, clergy and social workers. Yet school
employees have been singled out.
Gov. King describes fingerprinting, and creation of a federal criminal record
, as a "minor inconvenience." If that were so, four dozen teachers - and
likely hundreds more - would not already be talking of leaving the profession
rather than comply. Contrary to its assertions, a "majority" of states do
not use fingerprinting; 21 do. And of those, few require that all employees
be checked; most examine only new hires. Maine's fingerprinting law is one
of the harshest in the country. And all to prevent one case of child abuse,
or a handful.
This administration has not thought this through. It has not presented
convincing evidence of its claims, nor examined whether less coercive methods
might have worked. Nor has it shown that, had the law been in place earlier,
abuse might have been prevented.
A compromise is still possible. The law could be limited to new hires. It
could jettison the fingerprinting, while retaining background checks. It could include a sunset provision. Yet the governor and Commissioner Duke Albanese show no interest in a reasonable solution, ignoring many thoughtful people who see a whole class of public servants being brought under needless suspicion.
Without administration support, the Legislature is unlikely to repeal or
even substantially modify the law. It could fall to groups like the Maine
Civil Liberties Union to take the case to court. Contrary to news reports
that challenges to similar laws have "all failed," it's clear none have been mounted yet. The U.S. Supreme Court has been fuzzy on when security checks and drug testing are permissible, but generally, those in positions where the public can face immediate danger - truck drivers, pilots, train engineers - can be subject to mandatory testing, as are federal officials involved in national security. The unlikely idea that teachers pose special threats to children is ripe for court challenge. That the MCLU does not yet have an opinion on this question is disturbing.
But teachers who have worked to protect their rights should not be
discouraged. Justice, in the face of fear and suspicion, is not easily
achieved - especially when leaders fail to do their jobs.