Don't Hold Juvenile Activity Against People - Minorities and Professionals

The Ban the Box Campaign is an effort to ensure the inclusion of people who had earlier, youthful offenses in society. Below is the “Fair Chance Pledge” that supporters take:

This is unabashedly liberal and salutary. What someone does as a youngster should not live with them forever.

For example I am now a successful lawyer. But I have had some shortcomings. Among others:
When I was in 4th grade I stole a $0.12 ice cream bar (in 1967) and got in some trouble;

[ol]
[li]In the Spring of 1972 I tried to pet a dog who bit me. “Charlie” reported I bit the dog and my parents were asked to remove me from the school. I refused to go and the next year was better;[/li][li] In the summer of 1972 I had enough of someone picking on me and I threw a scissors at his feet, getting tossed out of camp for that;[/li][li] In college I got the school to allow me to drop a course without penalty at a point that it would have turned into an “F”;[/li][li] In the last semester of college I dropped a course, relying on AP credits to pass;[/li][li] In Law School I got Ritalin, complaining of ADHD when I wanted it for a stimulant; and[/li][li] Had minor scrape with the law about 25 years ago.[/li][/ol]

More important should any of those things disqualify me from any job?

Most liberals would support “ban the box” and second chances. Lately that has become “situational.”

It’s a good thing for ex-offenders to acknowledge the things they did wrong and their remorse for and rejection of their earlier misbehavior. And it’s a good thing for communities to give repentant acknowledged ex-offenders a second chance where possible.

Which repentant acknowledged ex-offender are you claiming liberals are trying to “situationally” deny a second chance to?

This is a bad attempt at a gotcha over Brett Kavanaugh, isn’t it?

That was my guess. But then I thought that surely the OP must have noticed that Kavanaugh obviously does not qualify for “Ban the Box”-style rehabilitation of ex-offenders, first and foremost because he adamantly denies having committed the alleged offense(s).

I’m willing to allow for the possibility that I may have overestimated the OP’s grasp of the situation, though.

OP, if you didn’t admit to your scrape with the law on your background check, and kept refusing to admit it happened even when confronted with the evidence, do you still think you deserve a break?

As an employer, I like to give second chances, and have hired people with criminal histories. It’s a chance, and not all of them work out, but the same goes for people without criminal history.

With your “rap sheet”, I would have no problem hiring you.

It’s not like you committed sexual assault and then lied about it, that’s the sort of thing I would have trouble trusting someone after.

Would lying about that “rap sheet”, while under oath, be a dealbreaker for you?

Yes, and it wouldn’t even have to be under oath.

”I LIKE BEER! I DRINK BEER! I WANTED A HEARING LAST WEEK! I WAS A VIRGIN THROUGH COLLEGE! THIS IS ALL A CONSPIRACY BY THE CLINTONS! LOOK AT MY CALENDAR! THERE ISN’T A SCINTILLA OF EVIDENCE! WHAT WAS THE QUESTION?”

Stranger

I agree heartily to Ban the Box. After all, who amongst us did not bite a dog, steal candy from a convenience store, or attempt a little gang rape when they were young? Let’s let bygones be bygones.

If they have admitted their sins, repented of them, and paid their debt to society, then I agree.

If I find out at the job interview that the person I am interviewing is an uncaught sexual assaulter, I have no use for him.

This is good advice for when people have changed, you give them the benefit of the doubt and treat them as humans.

This in no way means you should be accepting of continuing bad behavior or be suspicious of people who have not tried to change. Nor does it justify ignoring past criminal acts people are not repentant for purely due to the passage of time.

Had Kavanaugh demonstrated even a minimal amount of compassion his experience would have been much different. While he may still have failed the job interview for such a critical job, his failure to even acknowledge the concerns in a way that demonstrated compassion or a drive to equally apply the law was his downfall. Al Franken was removed from his critical role but did not suffer nearly the same level of response that he would have had he resorted to rape myths and invalidation.

As other posters have said, there were problems with his past actions but his behavior today seriously escalated the response.

And what does any of this have to do with minorities?

Definitely someone I want to hire for a lifetime job.

I don’t think Brett Kavanaugh is tempermentally suited to drive an ice cream truck, much less interpret laws and make decisions that affect several hundred million people.

Stranger

Fortunately, he may be just exactly temperamentally suited to drive the republican party into the ground, allowing better laws and decisions to be made that affect several hundred million people.

I should have used a smiley. If he gets in, ethics classes as law school should dissolve into a puddle of irony.

The problem with ban the box is that if you ban asking about criminal convictions it doesn’t make people want to hire criminals. This means that people with use proxies for criminality instead of actual data. This hurts minorities and people from bad neighborhoods.

Exactly - the kind of employer who would have rejected a convicted felon would now reject the kind of people who are more likely to be convicted felons. I think “ban the box” is now widely recognized as a failure, and the current push is to replace that system with employability certificats.

It sounds nice but seriously, it doesnt do much good for the simple fact many employers like in government have VERY strict hiring guidelines and they will do all kinds of background checks on you before giving you a job.