Rep. Scott Slater, D-R.I., brought legislation to the General Assembly last week to expand Providence’s ban on having a criminal history box on job applications to a statewide level. The ban does not prohibit checking criminal records: Rather, it is intended to force employers to conduct their own background checks only “after determining that an applicant is a finalist or making a conditional offer of employment.” The only ground to refuse applicants is if their criminal history may be connected to the employment they seek.
We strongly encourage the state government to accept this legislation. It represents an excellent step in the right direction for criminal rehabilitation into our state’s society, and — though the law necessitates follow-ups in recidivism studies, background check effectiveness and prison treatment — not extending it to the rest of the state would be foolish.
Joining the job market is unreasonably difficult for many former convicts. One man, Jay Parker, said at a press conference last week that his job search was hampered by lasting discrimination because of “two nearly 20-year-old drug convictions” that he previously had to include with any job application. He eventually got a job at the Rhode Island Convention Center, notably an institution subject to the Providence criminal history box ban. Parker’s tale illustrates that this kind of discrimination is a problem in the state at large and needs to be dealt with. Though they have been previously convicted, people like Parker still have the same rights and needs as other citizens: food, a home and some form of social support, all of which require or are bolstered by being employed. This bill will help former convicts achieve these needs without facing unnecessary discrimination along the way.
The bill’s main opponents are a lobbyist for the criminal background check industry, who, The Herald reported March 5, said he fears “the law will expose flaws in (the industry’s) methodology, making them vulnerable to lawsuits,” and the Rhode Island Chamber of Commerce, whose website states that “there is a further concern about safety and potential employer liability” in addition to possibly being out of line with federal laws pertaining to criminal background checks.
Neither of these arguments withstands scrutiny. The criminal background check industry alone is responsible for its methodology, and it should not use state policies to cover up its own problems. It must be accountable to a reliable method of analysis whether this bill passes or not. As an essential part of integrating felons into society, the industry should not conceal its system behind a highly discriminatory practice.
Secondly, the Rhode Island Chamber of Commerce, in echoing concerns about “safety,” perpetuates unfair negative stereotypes about felons, and the law would not create greater employer liability. Getting rid of the box merely has employers determine whether a candidate is qualified for the position, rather than simply noticing an application has a criminal record on it and dropping it in the recycling bin. As for the possibility of not being in line with federal law, this kind of legislation has been in effect in Providence and Boston since 2008 and 2006, respectively, with no response from Washington.
If this bill is not passed, the state government will essentially refuse to forgive the transgressions of former convicts who have already in some way paid their dues back to society. This is morally wrong, countering egalitarian ideals and allowing negative stereotypes about the smallest fractions of truly untreatable felons — namely psychopaths and sociopaths — to determine policy for a much larger number of treatable and treated ones.
Editorials are written by The Herald’s editorial page board: its editor, Dan Jeon, and its members, Mintaka Angell, Samuel Choi, Nicholas Morley and Rachel Occhiogrosso. Send comments to editorials@browndailyherald.com.
ADVERTISEMENT
