Columnist Lenore Skenazy wants you to think that requiring parents to undergo fingerprint checks prior to volunteering for youth sports leagues is on a level with Soviet-era police state methodology and will actually harm the parental volunteer movement.
Wait, really?
Ms. Skenazy is referencing Tenafly, New Jersey, where the Little League set in place a new rule that any adult wishing to volunteer with the team would need to undergo a background check.
Reasonable initiative, right? After all, if you can run a fingerprint check on someone, odds are they aren’t going to be able to mask any past criminal acts which would call into question their suitability to work with young kids.
Ms. Skenazy, however, feels it’s a drastic policy, one that blurs the line between “the United States and the former Soviet Union.” Her perspective is that actions like fingerprinting and background checks create a society where we are trained to distrust, where people are assumed guilty before proven innocent.
Officials who initiate background check policies recognize that we’re not living in a perfect world. While it’s comforting to think we’re still capable of trusting our fellow human beings, there is also the reality that we also live among human predators.
Is Ms. Skenazy aware of how many news pieces one can call up detailing the number of creeps that have deliberately hidden their crimes behind trusting façades?
Honest individuals shouldn’t feel as though their personal integrity is being called into question. This isn’t colonial America where individuals are being called out before a large assembly of their peers. It’s providing your fingerprint, waiting for the results, and boom, you’re clear.
No one is being singled out when these background check procedures are instituted. If anything, the matter of legal liability ensures that any reputable organization will conduct checks in accordance with the Fair Credit Reporting Act.
So, if we’re all making a big deal out of wanting to keep our kids safe, what’s the alternative?
Ms. Skenazy suggests that “parents to teach their kids “the three R’s” of abuse — recognize, resist and report” which actually is a very sensible suggestion, but she is basically suggesting that the “three R’s” supplant background checks entirely.
Kids are smart, but predators are often smarter and can take advantage of their victims in ways that a child might not even recognize as abuse. I’d much rather have the dual protections of a background screening system in addition to educating my child.
If someone loses the resolve to want to help their kids through volunteer work because of a required background check, maybe they aren’t adult enough to accept the reality of modern society. As long as you know you’re an honorable and decent human being, why should you allow a standardized background check to call that into question?
If you’re going to say that the cost of the check will deter volunteers, it’s often quite the contrary. Many school districts and recreation departments provide waivers or alternate payment plans for families in difficult financial circumstances. No one wants to shut out an honest individual willing to lend a hand.
Ms. Skenazy, there are bad people out there and they’re often individuals holding positions of trust you would never question…a reality that crosses political, religious and economic lines. Asking parents to arm their kids with simple common sense isn’t going to work in a world where the depredations of specific people aren’t going to be held by bay by the three R’s alone.
Fair and balanced background checks on volunteers aren’t robbing anyone of their dignity. They are ensuring the safety and well-being of organizations, parents and of course, the kids.
And that’s something I’m sure folks in the United States and Russia will both agree on.
