Education Dept. Security Procedures Questioned

Article Tools
  • PrintPrinter-Friendly
  • EmailEmail Article
  • ReprintReprints

To the Editor:

It was good to see the issue of contractor-employee security screening at the U.S. Department of Education receive attention ("Education Dept.’s Stricter Background Checks Questioned," Feb. 21, 2007). But your article, which in part discusses my refusal to comply with these new rules, leaves many basic questions unanswered.

What is the reason for requiring invasive “security clearances” for all contractor employees? The article cites an Education Department spokeswoman in reporting that these background checks “are now standard procedure for federal agencies hiring contractors who will have access to federal buildings or databases.” Yet the majority of contractor employees don’t access federal buildings, computers, or databases.

In that case, what is being made more secure by requiring invasive security clearances of thousands of ordinary people? The Education Department’s wholesale security-screening policy is not in the long list of recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, regardless of what Karen Evans of the White House Office of Management and Budget, also referenced in your article, suggests. Indeed, the 9/11 Commission is deeply concerned about people’s civil liberties and recommended that the burden of proof be on the executive branch to show that the power it exercises “materially enhances security” and also protects civil liberties.

Other unanswered questions: How are people screened, and who makes those decisions? An Education Department document states that its investigative information “regards individuals’ character, conduct, and loyalty to the United States as relevant to their association with the department.” Should we feel better knowing that a group of bureaucrats is judging the character, conduct, and loyalty of thousands of contractor employees—people who pose no material security risk in the first place—using criteria that the public and Congress have not seen to make those judgments?

Rather, let us reaffirm, with the 9/11 Commission, that government needs to very carefully strike a balance between security and America’s precious civil liberties.

Andrew A. Zucker
Cambridge, Mass.

Vol. 26, Issue 26, Page 29

Published in Print: March 7, 2007, as Education Dept. Security Procedures Questioned
Related Stories

Back to Top Back to Top

Most Popular Stories





Sponsor Insights

Vocabulary Development for Striving Readers

Free Ebook: How to Implement a Coding Program in Schools

Successful Intervention Builds Student Success

Effective Ways to Support Students with Dyslexia

Stop cobbling together your EdTech

Integrate Science and ELA with Informational Text

Can self-efficacy impact growth for ELLs?

Disruptive Tech Integration for Meaningful Learning

Building Community for Social Good

5 Resources on the Power of Interoperability from Unified Edtech

New campaign for UN World Teachers Day

5 Game-Changers in Today’s Digital Learning Platforms

Hiding in Plain Sight - 7 Common Signs of Dyslexia in the Classroom

The research: Reading Benchmark Assessments

Shifting Mindsets: A Guide for Training Paraeducators to Think Differently About Challenging Behavior

All Students Are Language Learners: The Imagine Learning Language Advantage™

Shifting Mindsets: A Guide for Training Paraeducators to Think Differently About Challenging Behavior

How to Support All Students with Equitable Pathways

2019 K-12 Digital Content Report

3-D Learning & Assessment for K–5 Science

Climate Change, LGBTQ Issues, Politics & Race: Instructional Materials for Teaching Complex Topics

Closing the Science Achievement Gap

Evidence-based Coaching: Key Driver(s) of Scalable Improvement District-Wide

Advancing Literacy with Large Print

Research Sheds New Light on the Reading Brain

Tips for Supporting English Learners Through Personalized Approaches

Response to Intervention Centered on Student Learning

The Nonnegotiable Attributes of Effective Feedback

SEE MORE Insights >