EMU fires sex offenders
Two Eastern Michigan University employees were fired two weeks ago because of past convictions of criminal sexual conduct, according to documents obtained by The Eastern Echo under the Freedom of Information Act.
EMU employed both at the time of their crimes, and the employees were on the Michigan Public Sex Offender Registry.
Possibly related:
- EMU-AAUP reaches agreement with administration · Sep 1
- SEEUS offers students safety when walking campus at night · Sep 1
- Rent-A-Text offers books at a more affordable price · Sep 1
- Police release sketch of suspect in assault on security guard · Aug 14
- Stolen Meals on Wheels vehicle found in Detroit · Aug 10
In 1998, one of the employees was convicted of criminal sexual conduct with the intent to commit sexual penetration. Because the convicted do not need to alert their employers, EMU officials did not become aware of the offense until 2006. The employee served his jail time on weekends, from September 1998 to April 1999, while continuing his duties at work during the week.
According to Craig Reidsma, director of employment at EMU, the university currently has no written policy on how to deal with employees who are convicted of a crime. He said the university is considering implementing periodic background checks.
“We’re constantly reforming and reevaluating our policies and processes,” Reidsma said.
He said currently each situation is handled on a case-by-case basis: A formal investigation is conducted, and then a meeting is held between human resources and the department in which the accused is employed, to determine whether the convicted can remain employed.
“We try to ensure due process,” said Dave Trakul, EMU’s director of employee relations and policy.
When EMU found out about the 1998 conviction of the employee, a meeting was held with Trakul, the employee, his manager and the union president. It was determined the employee could keep his job.
On Jan. 13, 2010, the university terminated the employee.
In October, The Eastern Echo, led by reporter Andrea Lorfel, launched an investigation into the university’s policies regarding the employment of sex offenders. Reidsma and Trakul said the investigation is what brought the issue to their attention; the university then decided to reassess the employment statuses of the two employees.
Reidsma said it’s not the policy that has changed, but the people and culture at the university. “We’re more stringent in application of discipline on that subject.”
Trakul added that today there’s a greater focus on safety.
The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Local 3866, which represents the former employees, has challenged the terminations.
“My job is to represent the terminated employees and make sure that nothing illegal was done in terminating their jobs as long as they continue to pay their union dues,” union president Nick Graham said.
Additional reporting by Andrea Lorfel
- |
by David Hess
Apparently, these two employees have been law abiding for over a decade. Their firing now is too extreme. It is sad when a university (supposedly a champion of reason and rationality) gives in to hysteria.
Flag for moderationby Samantha Ford
It’s sad when a campus fails to protect the safety of their students by doing background checks on their employees.
Flag for moderationIt’s also sad when the people checking in to things like this are the victims of harassment where they live.
by Sex Offender Issues
http://sexoffenderissues.blogspot.com
Flag for moderationby tb
I thought this was America, but apparently I was mistaken.
Get ready for a really nasty lawsuit, EMU. You deserve it.
Flag for moderationby Hallie Hall
So, Craig Reidsma, director of employment at EMU, says, “the university currently has NO written policy on how to deal with employees who are convicted of a crime…AND…that EMU is CONSTANTLY reforming and reevaluating their policies and processes…AND…says it’s NOT THE POLICY that has changed, but the people and culture at the university.”
What an oxymoron if I ever read one. EMU has NO WRITTEN POLICY yet is constantly reforming blah blah blah. Obviously Reidsma has not been doing a good job of that. Furthermore, he says the POLICY HASN’T changed….what a crock. These two employees were fired for political reasons only. EMU does not want another big blemish on its face, so to save face, EMU fires the two workers.
I agree, EMU has given in to hysteria and I’m all for protecting the safety of its students and employees. The fact that a crime was committed in 1998, how long after the afore mentioned employee was hired we do not know, and said employee has obviously been a good employee since that time, s/he still gets fired because of this crime committed ~ 12 years ago!??
So called sex offenders need jobs too. When they have done their time in jail, community service, probaton whatever, they have DONE their time. Why fire them now? For the simple reason that EMU needs to save face.
Sounds like EMU will have an ACLU type lawsuit on their hands soon, especially when said employee was told s/he could keep their job per Trakul above. Details of the second employee were not mentioned in the article, but I’m sure we’ll hear abut those soon.
Flag for moderationby Carl
why does EMU have a history of saying one thing and doing another?
if the decision was made to let the worker keep his job, the fact it was made public should have no bearing …
yes, are we ready for another lawsuit we will lose?
Has EMU ever won a lawsuit?
This will drag out for months … great work guys!
Flag for moderationby EMUGraduate
Bravo EMU!
Flag for moderationActually, sex offenders have a high rate of recidivism, so just beause they were only caught once does not mean they only committed one crime. Typically sex offenders offend many times before being caught and are likely to reoffend.
I know there have been recent articles about poor sex offenders – young boys and girls who are teens engaging in sex – but what about the rest of the sex offenders – rapists, child molesters, etc.? Why are people defending ALL sex offenders? They are a dangerous bunch who should not be around students and families. Do some research on these people and see what kinds of crimes they commit and how often they get “cured”.
by D Miles
“In 1998, one of the employees was convicted of criminal sexual conduct with the intent to commit sexual penetration. Because the convicted do not need to alert their employers, EMU officials did not become aware of the offense until 2006. The employee served his jail time on weekends, from September 1998 to April 1999, while continuing his duties at work during the week.”
Flag for moderationYep, that’s right…this person was found guilty of a crime in 1998 and was sentenced to 60 days in jail [by my math-30 weekends]! I cannot imagine what criminal would be given that light of a sentence if the crime was a truly heinous act. Urinating in public will get you on the RSO listing, so I have reached an assumptive conclusion that the original offense was not a High Degree Felony Assault…EMU needs to get a reality grip on dealing with issues and to get [their] stories straight…verbal gymnastics are not easily tolerated by those of us concerned about what is [and isn’t] a decision based on safety…
by David Hess
It is a myth that sex offenders have a high rate of recidivism. A recent study in New York state found that 8% of former offenders were arrested for another sex offense within 8 years of their initial date of registration.
Also, New York reports that 95% of those arrested for sex crimes are first time offenders, who are not listed on any registry.
More info is available at http://theparson.net/so
Flag for moderationby EMUGraduate
It is not a myth – I work in this field, have studied this, and dealt with this professionally. “First time offender” means first time being caught, by the way, not first time actually sexually assaulting someone. I am not about to list all the facts and resources here, but sex offenders cause lifelong damage to the victims. They can spend years escalating the depth of their offenses or perpetrating the crimes on multiple victims before being caught for their “first offense.”
Flag for moderationby EMU
Lets not forget the woman that was killed in her dorm room on the EMU campus. EMU should have thought about this safety issue a LONG TIME ago.
Flag for moderationby VT all over?
I suppose now that they lost their jobs they really have no reason not to go Virginia Tech on EMU? I cant say as I blame them, what do they have to lose? Or they could move to Iran and teach terrorists because it is much better to be a traitor and kill Americans than it is to be a sex offender. Or they could move, not register and hope for the best until they are caught, then go Tacoma 4 on the people who try to arrest them.
Flag for moderationby alumni
hey VT all over…are you mental??? and you wouldn’t blame them for killing people??? go straight to counseling, you need help!
Flag for moderationby D Miles
@EMUGraduate…as a victim of sexual abuse, I beg to differ with you, I do not now nor will I have lifelong damage… because I choose not to be a victim. Quit coddling people by telling them they will be damaged for life and thus making them dependent upon the “therapy” professionals.
Flag for moderationby EMUGraduate
I apologize – I did not mean to imply that victims are damaged. I meant to say that these sex offenders do a great amount of harm to innocent people, from the victims to their families. I know many, many survivors of rape, incest, and child molestation so I am speaking out of experience. I apologize for phrasing it poorly. I am just tired of people defending all sex offenders as victims themselves, when in fact, we should be protecting ourselves from sex offenders lest there be more and more survivors of sexual abuse in any form. The few offenders who are mislabeled or who are placed on the registry for minor or mislabeled offenses do not preclude the many others who commit offenses which SHOULD place them on the sex offender registry. I am not condoning pitch forks and torches, but keeping track of these people seems like a reasonable idea when you consider what some of them have done and are capable of doing. I am glad to hear you are doing well, but I know of others who are not doing so well following sexual abuse or rape. Social workers and therapists are there to assist those who might need some support – often there is no one else to help survivors.
Flag for moderationby Paul A.
Negative publicity and lack of rational thinking apparently led to an overreaction in this case. I have ABSOLUTELY NO PROBLEM with keeping track of sex offenders (although I do think the current registry is extremely flawed), nor do I object to that fact being considered by an employer WHEN IT IS RELEVANT TO THE JOB IN QUESTION.
But I don’t approve of capriciously dismissing two (otherwise apparently fine) employees and then attempting to justify it by claiming that the people and culture at EMU has changed (also note that in the case detailed, those changes would have occurred over just the past 3-4 years, the period since EMU officials first became aware of the offense in 2006, held the meeting with the employee and others at that time, and determined the employee could keep his job). And this just makes me laugh: “‘We try to ensure due process,’ said Dave Trakul, EMU’s director of employee relations and policy;” except when we don’t!
Flag for moderationby RVW
by Hallie Hall
To RVW, nowhere in EMU’s comment does s/he state that the woman who was killed in her dorm room was killed by a sex offender, but rather focuses on the safety issue pertaining to that case.
In that incident, the man who killed her was not a current student and was able to gain entry to her dorm on a previous visit through a window and on his second visit was able to waltz through an entrance door before he killing her. But the main safety issue was the fact that EMU kept it a secret from the woman’s parents and from EMU students, staff and faculty, which resulted in the termination of the head of student affairs and a lawsuit against EMU by her family.
EMUGraduate, you seem to contradict yourself. Bottom line, do you really think the fired employee deserved termination when s/he was allowed to keep their job several years ago, then was fired this year due to student reporting the fact that EMU had no written policy with regards to employees who were sex offenders? What about an employee who was convicted of manslaughter 12 years ago, did their time and was now a contributing member of society?
Flag for moderationby Another
There is a difference between sexual crimes and other crimes, and while I don’t think we can lump all sexual crimes or lump all the people on the SOR together, many of them should not be employed where they have access to student records, large numbers of students, families, etc. Unless I missed it, I don’t see exactly what crime these people committed or where they were employed. I wouldn’t employ sex offenders in a church, school, hospital, medical records office, adoption records office, or the Boy Scouts, but they can be employed in a factory or medical research center or restaurant or somewhere that they are separated from access to victims and info on victims. I am just giving examples, so please don’t point out specific errors in these examples. It is not a definitive list, just food for thought. For sex offenders, 3 years or 10 years passing does not mean they are safe in certain settings. I agree with what was said previously that there are studies showing sex offenders commit many times before they are caught with their first offense. Someone else above mentioned that the mistake EMU made was keeping info a secret – so then we should not keep secrets – sex offenders should be on the registry and students & parents should know who these people are. If I had a small child and there was a sex offender living down the street, I would want to know so that I don’t let my kid go to their home if invited inside or walk past it alone. Same goes for a 17 or 20 year old in college who may befriend or date a rapist or someone who molests children.
Flag for moderation