I’m filling out an online application for teacher certification. The question asks this:
In 2005 I was arrested for Driving Under the Influence. I pled guilty, did all of the stuff required, and got my license back a few months later.
I have always listed the DUI in response to questions like this, so this is not a secret.
My father is telling me that I don’t need to list this, as a DUI is a misdemeanor and not a “criminal offense”. I’d rather err on the side of caution and disclosure, but I don’t want to have to admit to something that I don’t have to.
When I worked for the State of California, you absolutely had to include DUI. I am not sure if it varies from state to state, but we had to deny a very qualified candidate for a position because they failed to list it and it turned up when we did the background check.
The wording of the question makes it clear that even a “minor traffic violation such as speeding” is a criminal offence. You’re not asked to disclose all offences, but only a subset of traffic offences which excludes offences which are minor traffic violations. The exclusion would not be necessary if minor traffic violations were not offences in the first place.
And the website is correct. A misdemeanour is not something different from a criminal offence; it’s a particular type of criminal offence.
So the issue comes down to this: is your DUI conviction analogous to speeding or driving too fast for conditions? If you think it is, and if you think the teacher certification authorities would agree, you can leave it off. But if you are not pretty sure about this, put it in. Having an old DUI conviction is unlikely to jeopardise your certification, but having lied in your application certainly could. Besides, the nation needs teachers who are morally virtuous, and telling the truth is a virtue.
Your father thinks you will not get the job if you list it, and he may be correct. However, DUI is not a traffic ticket, it is a crime.
If you don’t list it, and the employer does a criminal background check, there is a near 100% chance the you won’t be hired because of lying on your application. If you do list it, the chance of your being hired is much more uncertain.
There is about a 100% chance they will check at least criminal records within the state, so if your conviction is within the same state, there is about the same chance they will find out – which makes lying entirely counterproductive.
Having just gone through a hiring process at a university – I can tell you that they hire a commercial service to do background checks.
The best advice I can give is to tell the truth. The second best advice is to look at the material made available online by the state which gave you the DUI before deciding what to do. Wisconsin, where I live, has a website with all criminal and civil court decisions for the past 15 years or so. If the DUI state makes records similarly available, you will almost certainly be found out.
Oops – didn’t see that this was for a state-issued certification. You might get lucky if the DUI was in another state and they don’t catch it. Again, if you do get found out, your certification will undoubtedly not be given.
Is the prospective employer going to do a background check on you? Usually a position with some kind of government agency, or the military they will. A job at Bloomies will not.
So, if they are going to do a background check then yes, admit your DUI. If not then don’t admit it because it will hurt your chances.
Not sure what state the OP is from but a glance at their profile suggests it is South Carolina. In SC, as in many other states, you have to submit your fingerprints as part of the application process. They will be submitted to the FBI who will provide the criminal background check. This is required by state law. (cite - pdf)
There is **zero **chance they will not find out about your DUI conviction, and if you fail to disclose it you will not be hired. Period. And worse, being denied a teaching certificate by SC is something you’ll be required to report to other states, which is likely to affect your ability to get a teaching certificate elsewhere.
As part of your certification process, you’ll have a chance to explain why your prior conviction should not prevent you from teaching. I have no idea how hard that will be, but you’ve got a better chance of getting a certificate this way then by lying about your record.
I reported mine, on a job application requiring secret security clearance a couple of years back.
I got the job and got the security clearance, however my charge was in 1987. They told me that they didn’t care since this particular conviction was > 10 years ago.
This is in Canada.
YMMV but I asked a number of informed people who all told me that it is always better to tell the truth in these kinds of situations.
I thought so. BTW, I’ve already done fingerprinting and paid for the background check (although I don’t know the results.) I listed it. Certification is pending.
Sounds wise. One of the last events of my college teacher training was a lecture about this, basically saying, “Don’t try to fuck us on the criminal background check: it won’t work.” Only in much more polite language, and in much greater detail. They said you could still get a teaching license with something like a DUI, but you couldn’t get a teaching license with a lie about a DUI.
List it. Always best to tell the truth. If you don’t want the job, don’t bother with the application.
Possibly, if you pled guilty and received deferred adjudication, you can get the DUI “sealed” where it would not show up on background checks and you would not have to list it for this type of question question.
At the end of my teaching program, it was discovered that the $200 we paid for the background check and fingerprints didn’t actually get put to use when we applied! They never ran them. So the university finally followed through with it all months later and guess what? Several kids were pulled from the program because they had DUIs.
disclose the information. If it isn’t necessary you get points for full disclosure. If it is it will show up in the background check and you had better have disclosed it. As for a misdemeanor not being a criminal offense…IANAL but that is clearly wrong. You broke a law. That is the definition of a crime. It might be minor, though driving while intoxicated isn’t minor in my estimation, but it is still a good idea to disclose the information.
Yes, I got the job. I was never asked to list any convictions, but I did have to sign a consent for a criminal background check. I don’t have any convictions, so I have no idea that would have happened if I had and they found it.
Congrats! I found your bus-ridin’ thread, and rejoiced at your jobfulness. I used to work a few paces off State St., and just loved the energy level downtown.
It should be cooler next week, so you’ll be able to walk around on your lunch hour without sweating gallons.
In 2006 I was arrested for DUI, and pleaded guilty to Physical Control While Under the Influence (which is only slightly less serious than a DUI). Two years ago I filled out an application to become an adjunct professor at a local university. They didn’t ask about my criminal history, but they *did *say they would conduct a criminal background check. I got the job with no problem.
You would be amazed at how many professionals have dings on their criminal records. Heck, I think half my coworkers have DUIs. I’m not trying to make light of it. Just that if a DUI is the worst crime you’ve even committed, most people will look beyond it.
Even though I agree that you should have disclosed it, I’d like to ask folks that have been through this (and others) what would happen if you didn’t because you didn’t think you had to?
Let’s say **Rucksinator **didn’t disclose because of his interpretation of the question. He doesn’t get hired. Can he find out why they didn’t hire him? For someone who is a great candidate, can they get the benefit of the doubt by asking them about the DUI and why it wasn’t listed instead of just tossing the resume?
Seems to me that it would be much easier to list as an example on the application a DUI instead of making it up to the interviewee to self-report something that may not be clear as to its requirement. If, as the hiring company finds it during their background check, why couldn’t they ask why it was omitted? If the person explains why they didn’t disclose it, then discloses everything about it, why couldn’t that be acceptable?
Seems to me that if you as the employer know that you want things like DUI’s reported, then there shouldn’t be any question. Explicitly stating DUI as an example would remove all doubt. It’s not like that description is all that clear.
(just playing devil’s advocate here. Like I said, I think he should have disclosed it to remove any doubt).
The last two applications I have filled out have had similar language to the one in the OP, but at the bottom is a disclaimer:
NOTE: A DUI is NOT a minor traffic infraction.
I agree that the wording is ambiguous. Is a DUI minor? Compared to genocide, rape, treason, and aircraft piracy,of course. Is it a minor traffic violation? It probably the most serious traffic violation.
The confusion of the OPs father probably stems from the fact that most older job applications only cared about felony convictions. They didn’t care if you got in a bar fight in college, etc. They were just worried about serious offenses. Today, I’ve seen applications that tell you to disclosure arrests and charges that were dismissed and even expunged.