Teachers, Child Molesters, + Fingerprinting (was Who is disabled)
furuhashi.1 at osu.edu
Wed Jun 17 19:12:07 PDT 1998
Michael Perelman replies to Brad:
>I would not expect such a response from you. Yes, the law was to protect
>against child molesters, but this person had been a teacher for quite some
>time, who was fired because of the fingerprints.
>There was no indication that he was anything but an excellent teacher.
>The school board tried to retain him.
I still haven't gotten an answer as to when the law was passed to require
the fingerprinting of teachers. I presume that this law is relatively new
(passed in the 80s or the 90s); or was the law passed much earlier?
Isn't the law an effect of the recent waves of moral panics about sex
offenders, especially sex crimes that concern minors? Or had the law been
on the book even before it?
More information about the lbo-talk