Quote:
|
Originally Posted by KenWittlief
I think you are exaggerating just a little - it doesnt say anything about parking tickets. You would have to be pretty wild behind the wheel to get 4 major moving violations in 3 years, and here in NY you would have lost your license after the 3rd, which means you got the 4th while driving without a license.
|
The point is that there is absolutely no way to discern the severity of the criminal conviction that causes someone to get red flagged, or, for that matter, whether there is a criminal conviction at all.
Quote:
|
Since the FAQ doesnt list any other criteria for disqualifying a mentor, Im fairly certain they mean that is the inclusive list.
|
The FAQ document reads, "Note: A red-coded “COMPLETED” does not mean the individual has a criminal history. This code can result for a number of reasons." It is immediately followed by the question, "What criminal convictions could disqualify a person from serving as a team mentor?" The list is not inclusive as it only indicates criminal convictions that are of concern. So, while that's clear, it is also immediately followed with the phrase, "The following convictions, regardless of when they were committed," which makes absolutely no sense at all. Once again, we see example that shows FIRST staff are not world-class writers and so, like with many rules, their intent may be muddled by their language.
As a non-profit organization, FIRST has the right to deny participation to people who impede its ability to express its views. The Supreme Court says so. So, if FIRST wants to red-flag people who are gay, or who protested the war, or who advocated the legalization of marijuana, they can do that. But, if I'm going to give so much of myself to this program, the least I expect in return is a straight answer about what views this organization is expressing by this action.
As best as I always could tell, the views that this organization was trying to express focused on inspiring students to do something better than score the winning run, teaching them something more about their potential to grow and help others, and doing something more to give them the facilities and opportunities they need to accomplish our goals. If you can do those things, you don't have a right to be a part of this organization, you have an obligation.
Background checks are great and wonderful and useful -- when implemented correctly. This system is atrocious in its design and execution and does more harm and disservice to this organization and the people dedicated to it than it will ever help.