Schools Doing Background Checks On Prom Dates Before They Let Them In

[matcom]

<snip>

A Cape Cod teen is all dressed up with no place to go after her high school snooped into her boyfriend’s past and banned him from the prom after learning he’d been convicted of pot possession.

“It’s like a smack in the face,” said 18-year-old Erica Eckert, one of two seniors whose non-student boyfriends were too bad for the big dance. “I’m honestly not sure what I want to do,” she said in a tearful interview last night.

Dennis-Yarmouth Regional High School banned Eckert’s 19-year-old boyfriend from Saturday’s soiree after a criminal background check turned up a past marijuana possession charge, Eckert said.

The school started Criminal Offender Record Information checks this year for non-students going to the prom. Any date with a criminal past would be rejected, she said. A School Committee member last night said the school’s administrators - not the School Committee - approved the policy.

Now Eckert’s mom Kathy is out the $500 she paid for her daughter’s tourquoise dress, limo and makeup for the big night.

“It’s just a real shame that everything is paid for,” she said. “It’s really sad.”

The Massachusetts American Civil Liberties Union said the school’s actions are illegal.

“The principal cannot go snooping in CORI records for people,” said Norma Shapiro, the ACLU’s legislative director.

She said that state CORI laws permit digging into the criminal past of school volunteers with access to students.

“Exactly how does that extend to the prom?” Shapiro said.

Kathy Eckert met with the principal yesterday to plead with him but could not convince him, she said.

Principal Kenneth Jenks did not return calls for comment.

Another senior, Lindsey Roderick, 17, said her 20-year-old boyfriend of three years was also rejected. The school never told her they were digging into his past, she said.

“It’s very unfair,‘’ she said.

http://news.bostonherald.com/localRegional/view.bg?articleid=138473&format=text

[ScreamingMeemie]

1. Well, as an adult, I had to go through a background check to chaperone

at my son's school and help out in class. Both of these boys/men are over 18. I don't know what liability issues the school would face but, if it's good for me, it's good for them.

[MissMillie]

5. They should do the checks VERY early

so that if a date is going to be rejected, the other person has time to get another date.

[ScreamingMeemie]

7. Totally agreed. But I don't see anything wrong with it.

:hi:

[MissMillie]

12. I thought that in order for the school to do a CORI check

the person being "checked" had to sign a permission form.

That's how it was when I had one done so that I could be a chaperone at NJROTC events....

[ScreamingMeemie]

13. I did not sign anything, but I knew about it. The sad fact is that two

really great parents were bumped from school activities for indiscretions that happened more than a decade ago.

[MissMillie]

14. I live in MA, and they had me fill out a form and sign it

They needed my social security number.... which actually would have made a difference.

My twin and I share the same first name, and (of course) birth date. She has a criminal record. I do not.

[Midlodemocrat]

2. Well, that settles it. Guess you can't be Cait's date on Saturday.

She'll be SO disappointed. :cry:

[matcom]

3. BULLSHIT!!!

my record was sealed DECADES AGO! :D

[Midlodemocrat]

4. I seem to recall a photo of you being escorted from a bar

by an undercover cop. Hmmm. Oh, yeah.























DS1's website.

[matcom]

8. FAKE COP!!!

:rofl:

[Midlodemocrat]

9. You know that and I know that, but do you think that the

background check people will care? I sure don't.



Now, I'm off to return her dress. She won't be needing it.

[matcom]

10. no she won't

we won't be getting out of the car :hide:

[Midlodemocrat]

11. You. Are. The. Worst. Person. Ever.

[matcom]

15. gotta be bad to be good

:rofl:

[Midlodemocrat]

16. Huh. Not what the Mrs. says.

:hide:

[Hugin]

6. At the very least they should do a Google Image Search...

Might be worth a few laughs.

[ThomCat]

17. Does the idea of schools doing background checks

scare anyone else? I don't like the idea of some school administrator building files on private citizens. It's not like those dates are going to be in possitions of authority. They're attending a dance.

This really worries me.

[Midlodemocrat]

18. At the risk of being serious in this thread.

I agree with you. Background checks for dates is ridiculous. The kid will be in the building under supervision for a grand total of 4 hours. We have other needs for these resources.

[GoddessOfGuinness]

19. I don't have a problem with background checks

because they may help round up dangerous fugitives.

However, I don't believe background checks should be used to deny ex-cons admission to school functions. If they did their time, their debt to society is paid.

[ThomCat]

23. The possibility of a dangerous fugitive wanting to go to a prom

is so incredibly slim that it defies imagination. Imagine the money wasted to find one or maybe two dangerous fugitives nation wide showing up at a prom.

But if that's the goal, then have the police go arrest the rare fugitive but let everyone else attend the prom.

I think this is a huge waste of time and money just to stamp their feet and say that they have the power to approve or disapprove of people. It's high schools insisting on judging people where it's really none of their business.

I hope the ACLU nails this school district.

[GoddessOfGuinness]

31. I suspect you're right about it being a waste of money.

And a guy who was convicted of pot possession doesn't exactly seem like a threat to people's safety...

[kay1864]

32. Not a threat??

He might force them all to take drugs! Every single one!

Then we'd have

[MissMillie]

21. the part that worries me is that these people

didn't know there was a background check being done on them.

I worked for the Department of Corrections (in MA) for a while, and it was my understanding that no one could check your Criminal Offender Record (except for law enforcement) without your permission.

[ThomCat]

26. I think those protections are slipping away.

Soon, everyone will be able to know everything about everyone.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

24. You can't even enter our building

without giving up your ID and having it put through some sort of a data base. I don't know if it is just sexual predator or not. Then you get a stick on badge with your picture on it.

Even the UPS guy.

[ThomCat]

27. We see that everywhere here in NYC

I didn't realize it was getting that extensive out in the heartland.

That's scary.

[ScreamingMeemie]

28. They are adults in the presence of minors (if they are over 18) at

a school sponsored function. While I disagree with waiting until the last minute, if I have to be background checked to work with minors, so should they.

[GirlinContempt]

29. MrsG, I disagree

Working with minors implies a position of some sort of authority. In such cases, yes, checks are required. However, someone who attends a dance is in no position of authority and is not working with minors, merely socializing with some minors and some adults. I don't think that record checks are fair or just, especially given what goes on some peoples records.

These dates are not attempting to teach the students or chaperon them, they are attempting to accompany their friends to a function, and I think it's wrong to run background checks.

[ScreamingMeemie]

35. We'll have to agree to disagree. If it's good for me as a helper

( with no authority whatsoever) in the classroom, it is good for any adult (over 18) in the school. As I said to Thom, in this sue crazy society, there is a liability. I've never had any authority of any sort. The school would be liable.

[Rabrrrrrr]

43. But you ARE in a position of authority, even as a helper.

It is assumed that the children are to listen to you, respect you, and obey you. You aren't the ultimate authority, such as the teacher is, but believe me, you are in a position of authority and a position of power.

A person going to a prom as a date is not in a position of authority at all - they are in a position of no power and no authority, since they are being chaperoned and are under the direct control of the chaperones at the dance.

[ThomCat]

30. But there is a difference between

being their guest at a social function and being a person in a position of authority.

I don't like the schools telling kids who they can and cannot bring to a social function unless there is a real, legitimate reason why those people should not be there.

The fact that they are there at the kids' invitation and not the school's (unlike someone who works there) should raise the bar on when the school is justified to step in. The fact that these dates did not concent should raise the bar even farther.

This isn't at the edge of a slippery slope. I think this is part way down that slope. I think the school went way too far.

[ScreamingMeemie]

34. I think they did in that they didn't give notice, but, if I have to go

through it, so should any adult (over 18) at a school function. A guest under the age of 18 fine. But there is liability involved and we are a sue crazy country...unfortunate as it is.

[uppityperson]

38. ThomCat, I am in agreement with you about this.

Not posting it again since you already wrote it well, but just to state my agreement with you.

[ScreamingMeemie]

40. But, my point was. I have no authority on school grounds. It is

made very clear to me, as a parent, that if I have a problem with a child I must bring it to the attention of the teacher. I am there to be a "head counter". If it is good enough to run a check on a 35 year old woman with the same sort of contact with minors, it is good enough to run a check on any person over the age of 18 in contact with minors. This is my point. Otherwise, they are discriminating. Thom's response just clarified the discrimination for me. :shrug:

[ThomCat]

41. But you're there at the school's invitation.

The dates are there at the invitation of a student.

You are interacting with all the kids in a semi-official capacity. The dates are there to dance.

They expect you to be there periodically facilitating education (their official goal). A date will be there for a few hours dancing.

I don't think it's a fair comparison to say that a date at a social event warrents the same background check you got. Nor do I think it is ethical.

As you said, we'll have to agree to disagree.

[ScreamingMeemie]

44. I am there as a head counter. Nothing more. I am not allowed to facilitate

anything. Not anymore, once the new rules came down. I disagree with it on both fronts, BUT, if it's good for one. it's good for the other.

[uppityperson]

46. I think there is a difference between the adults chaperoning &participants

Yes, the adults need to be held to a high standard. However, the participants should be allowed to bring who they want, but they need to abide by the school and dance rules. Or else they need to have a rule that anyone over 18 (how about the students themselves?) need to pass a test to get in. I think that the students should be able to bring who they want, without having been screened since they are participants in the event, and you adults are the chaperones. Thinking along here, how about if a student brings someone, say 30 yrs old as a date? They would still have participant status, not chaperone status, so unless the school has an age rule, it would be ok. Not ok with me to have this happen, think the school should have an age rule, but the screening of students and their guests IS different than screening the adult chaperones.

[Quantess]

36. Yes, it is.

It's scary that a principal is allowed to do all this snooping, for a PROM, for cryin out loud.

[NewJeffCT]

20. Gee, can't go to the prom, but you can be CEO of Radio Shack!

Or a Congresswoman from Ohio... or a football coach for Notre Dame... or...

[ThomCat]

22. That does put it into perspective.

:)

[GirlinContempt]

25. That. Is. Insane.

[Quantess]

33. I think it's terrible.

It's like they are punishing her for something her boyfriend did.
I could maybe understand having a police officer checking to see if anyone had an outstanding warrant for their arrest, since that would mean they might be a danger to society.
The boyfriend has already been punished by the legal system, and now he's being punished by the school, too. The school is overstepping their authority.

[Oeditpus Rex]

37. This bothers me on several levels

The first being that kids apparently have to tell the fucking school who their prom date is. That's about one step from mandating whom they can have as friends.

Another is the parents and/or kids being stuck with non-refundable expenses.

Still another is the principal not returning the reporter's call(s). Fucking unaccountable pussy. :grr:

[ThomCat]

45. Absolutely.

I don't recall ever having to tell my high school who I was bringing. I just had to buy two tickets.

But I guess during all the paranoia about people bringing same-sex dates (oh, the horror) schools started demanding the right to refuse.

Maybe this isn't that recent. I imagine schools did the same thing to prevent interracial couples for the longest time.

Now schools are just sticking their noses in where they have no business. Who the hell cares if date has a traffic ticket or a misdemeanor on his record. Even if he has a felony, if he's done his time and he's okay for general society then what business is it of the school to say he can't be someone's date?

And what right does the school have to make students pay all this money and then get the news that they can't attend?

And why is it that school boards and school administrators are never accountable to anyone? School systems are bureaucratic castles, and nobody's getting past the moat.

[ChoralScholar]

47. .

>And why is it that school boards and school administrators are never accountable to anyone?

The same reason that congressmen are not held accountable. People don't vote.

If a school board member really thought, deep down, that they would not get re-elected if they didn't respect their constituents' wishes, they would be more in tune to what the people wanted. (which is the whole point of a representative in the first place)

[RedCappedBandit]

39. I'm going to court tomorrow

for being in the car with somebody who had pot on him.

Now I wont be able to go to any proms! (Not like I planned to.. but still!)

:cry: :cry:

[ThomCat]

42. I hope you have a good lawyer.

People are in jail on pot convictions who had no pot.