[Tristan Lall]

Since I'm not a sponsor who ostensibly receives the 2^nd trophy, I'm all for just handing out one (full-sized one), and offering duplicates for sale.

Who owns the IP rights for the trophies? Could FIRST just bid them out to some place that is less expensive?


Actually, I thought the background check question was more interesting. It seems like an overreaction to a non-issue. FIRST's event volunteers generally interact with students in public places at the events, and are in contact with them for such a short period that the actual risk of harm is minimal. You might as well demand a background check of everybody waiting at the bus stop.

Besides, background checks only identify previous offenders—so they're by definition a half-measure.

And once a background check comes up positive, now FIRST is in the even more difficult position of having to justify why that particular offence makes that person unsuitable for the job. It would, for example, be unconscionable to reject someone convicted only of sodomy (under consensual circumstances, among adults, in the Lawrence v. Texas sense) on the pretense that they might be an ephebophile and therefore a threat to FIRST's students. But someone is going to scream "sex offender" (as if they were all the same), and raise a panic. FIRST should not put itself in a position where its policies, combined with misplaced societal fears, force it to suborn that reprehensible witch-hunting behaviour.

To use a less inflammatory example: can someone convicted of tax evasion still function as a safety glasses dispenser? Would FIRST's background check policy exclude such a person, and if so, how isn't that a mockery of that person's civil rights? They were convicted, paid their restitution or were incarcerated and released, and their offence has no reasonable connection to their volunteer position. Although in most jurisdictions, and especially given that it's a volunteer position, FIRST couldn't be held liable under employment law, that doesn't absolve them of a moral duty to avoid stigmatizing someone who has no obvious reason to do FIRST or its participants any harm.

What's more, now FIRST and the volunteer co-ordinator are responsible for safeguarding sensitive information. Although convictions are generally a matter of public record, FIRST shouldn't put itself in a position where the release of this data, and a subsequent overreaction could devolve into defamation or some other tort.

So save some money, and let the teams set their own policies for background checks. After all, it's the teams that are bringing the largest number of strange adults to any given event, many of whom will have a much greater opportunity to be present with minors in compromising circumstances.