Testimony in Opposition to Fingerprinting -- February 10, 2000
Joint Legislative Committee on Education
Members of the Joint Education Committee:
My name is Don Tarbet. I am a parent, a retired university professor, a businessman, and
a school board member from Bradford, Maine. I am here to speak on behalf of my
colleagues and the 152 teachers, ed. techs., administrators, and support personnel from
our District who chose to fulfill their professional obligations by remaining with our
children rather than disrupt the schools to be here to testify at this 1:00 hearing on a
school day.
In the interest of time, I am but highlighting my thoughts on this issue in order that others
may also be heard. We continue to be appalled at the action of the State Department of
Education; first, in vigorously pushing for such a ‘feel good’ measure as imposing
fingerprinting-based background checks on employees of school systems throughout
Maine without offering either logic or evidence in support of this intrusion on personal
privacy. Second, the Department has shown arrogance and insensitivity in its heavy
handed implementation of the process, including even, public intimidation by high DOE
officials using threats to ‘take names’ reminiscent of the late and unlamented Senator
Joseph McCarthy. Reflect on the editorial comments by Commissioner Albanese in
yesterday’s Bangor Daily News that there are, “…a few hiding…” among the 15,000
whose civil liberties are to be invaded. I am old enough to remember the scare tactics of
the McCarthy era.
To date there has been no empirical evidence provided that fingerprinting our teachers
will prevent a teacher we now employ from abusing any child. We have, in many
persons and through many channels asked of our elected and appointed representatives
that they explain to us just how this imposition will benefit our children. To date, we
have heard cogent and thoughtful statements only from those of our representatives who
think the measure foolish and unconscionable. Supporters have offered not one shred of
empirical evidence and only dubious logic for the efficacy of such an action in its
intended goal of ‘protecting our children’.
No one could be more eager than we are to protect our children; that is our mission, our
privilege and our responsibility as parents and as elected officials from our towns.
Nonetheless, we find the belief that this measure will provide any protection whatsoever
to be little more than wishful thinking. Nobody has been able to tell us how many repeat
offenders (the only ones who would be detected) prey upon children in the public
schools. Prudent district personnel already perform employment history traces when
hiring new personnel. What relevant information will be revealed by the fingerprinting
that is not revealed by current procedures? Our teachers and support staff are not drifters
off the streets. Most of them are highly skilled professionals and respected members of
our communities. As such they rightfully resent what amounts to public tarring and
feathering.
We have been told that many other states have enacted the same or similar legislation.
We are also told that many other professions require similar background checking. Well,
one of those states – albeit landlocked – also has a law against hunting any game but
whales from a moving automobile.
The actions taken by others states will not necessarily affect Maine. Contrary to
unsupported interpretations of phone calls by the deputy education commissioner. We
will not be turned into a haven for pedophiles, as some have suggested. Even if – against
all logic and evidence – raving hordes of child molesters infest the teaching profession,
actions taken by other states will not affect Maine as long as we maintain the prudent
practices we now employ.
Perhaps, if we don’t become hysterical and run around shouting that the sky is falling,
Maine will become a haven for teachers sensitive to history and values who wish to feel
respected and honored – not treated as potential pedophiles. Please note that many of our
most respected teachers are upset by this imposition.
In an era of increasingly rapid communications and increasing population, we are called
upon more and more to give up the privacy of our persons and our property. These
demands will no doubt increase beyond what we may now conceive. At least let us
demand that our sacrifices be in good cause, with undeniable benefit supported by strong
evidence and tight logic.
And, of course, we must always ask if what gain is worth what we must pay to obtain it.
Responsible community and state leaders have questioned all of the assumptions behind
this Draconian imposition. We strongly support those who have called for re-
examination of the efficacy of this measure. We ask you to let reason prevail. Let
logical conclusions drawn from reasonable evidence govern your actions. Let us not
allow ourselves to be seduced by the appeal of ineffective and unnecessary measures that
do nothing but distract our attention from the vital issues of protecting our children’s
security. If there are holes in our present procedures, let us plug those holes rather than
imposing a new and expensive layer of bureaucracy, and, in the process, alienating those
with whom we must work to maintain the integrity of our schools.
At each of two recent education conferences I attended, the conclusion was reached that
protecting and enhancing teacher morale is vital to achieving the educational goals of our
state. We view this fingerprinting measure as being in direct conflict with that goal.
There are no simple answers to the complex problem of protecting our children from
predators. Some of the answers may lie with the courts; some may lie with strengthening
of current procedures. But, before we can answer questions, we need to work to
understand the nature and scope of the problem we are trying to solve. That has not been
done in this case. In fact, what little evidence exists suggests that the whole direction of
this measure is wrongheaded.
Commissioner Albanese’s editorial in yesterday’s Bangor Daily News provides the most
damming evidence against fingerprinting yet offered. The Commissioner himself admits
that the fingerprinting won’t do much to protect our children. He says, “It’s primarily
enhancing the integrity and public perception of the teaching profession.” In other
words, it’s all for appearances.
And, of course, as our superintendent indicated to 400 people gathered in our school gym
when a released sex offender was placed by the state less than one-half mile from our
school, watching our fellow citizens will never work as well as will watching our
children – and teaching them to watch out for themselves. Creating the façade of safety
through fingerprinting as the Commissioner wishes to do can serve only to reduce the
vigilance of parents, children, and the community at large.
Let us proceed on the basis of evidence and reason. I hope this hearing will pave the way
to sorting out the evidence and coming to reasonable conclusions that have been absent to
date on this issue. The fingerprinting law needs to be repealed.
Thank you for your time.
Don Tarbet, PhD
402 Atkinson Road
Bradford, ME 04410
327-1453
327-1025 fax
don@mint.net