Do you know who works for you? To (background) check, or not to check, that is the question. (Update).

In mid-January 2002, Casmier Zubrowski, a fiscal administrator at Naugatuck Valley Community College, was arrested in the New Year's Day stabbing murder of his wife. It soon came to light that he had had a previous conviction of second-degree assault--and the school was aware of it--but he had been permitted to continue working at the college.

More recently, a Palestinian professor at the University of South Florida was fired when the school claimed he had links to terrorists. And a Physics professor at the University of Connecticut was barred from campus after he allegedly made disparaging remarks about a gay colleague, and threatened to kill a fellow Physics professor.

Certainly, in light of September 11, faculty, staff, and students of Middle Eastern and Arab descent have come under greater scrutiny on college campuses nationwide. But 9/11 notwithstanding, isolated incidents of crime involving faculty and students occur fairly regularly. Now that the terrorist attacks against the U.S. have resulted in a heightened awareness of security, the question is being asked: Why aren't colleges and universities adopting stricter guidelines and enforcing stronger measures regarding the background checks of faculty, staff--even student--populations?

Sheldon Steinbach, general counsel for the American Council on Education, believes the checks make sense. "The combination of 9/11 and the November 2001 passage of the Patriot Act has raised the importance of background checks in and of themselves," he asserts. He points to the Act as a tool for law enforcement officials, giving them more power for just such checks and surveillance. "[The Act] raised the visibility to conduct background checks," he says, adding that in presentday society--with the increased threat of liability--it is now more than acceptable to conduct such checks. More than that, he says, it is wise to conduct comprehensive checks, especially on prospective employees.

"It is my impression," he says, "that more schools are devoting requisite resources to conducting extensive checks on administrative hires. Department heads are giving greater scrutiny to their hires," he adds.

But what does "scrutiny" entail? The requisite resources, says Steinbach, include phone calls that might not have been made pre-9/11: not just those to previous employers, but to anyone who has worked with prospective employees. What's needed, he explains, are multiple checks of qualifications, adding that if nearly 30 percent of resumes contain false information (an unscientific, but widely held belief), "it would behoove any employer to double- and triple-check the information on an application, and really explore an individual's background."

Not all institutions of higher education hold the same view.

In light of Zubrowski's arrest, the Board of Trustees for the Connecticut Community Colleges system (which has authority over 12 schools in Connecticut) remains steadfast in not performing checks for its employees.

"There is no requirement for us to perform background checks as we hire employees," states Mary Anne Cox, director of Communications for the Board of Trustees. "And, though there's no state or federal law preventing us from checking felony conviction records, there's no law requiring that we check those records, either. Our job application forms currently pose questions regarding convictions of felonies. But Mr. Zubrowski's conviction was not an issue at the time of his hire." NVCC hired Zubrowski in 1983, and it was not until 1996 that the college learned through news reports that he was being charged with the attempted murder of a female. Zubrowski wasn't convicted of second-degree assault until 1998. According to Cox, when word of the conviction came to light, he was put on probation (the university kept him on the payroll).

"There was no demonstration in his on-the-job performance that there was any connection to violence," she says. "Performance problems are addressed by the employer." And even though later, in 1997 and 1998, Zubrowski was having problems with work absenteeism, Cox says that, too, was "not considered just cause for dismissal." In fact, Zubrowski was not dismissed at all, even after his January 2002 arrest for murder. He resigned his position shortly after his arrest, as he was being held in custody, in lieu of a $3-million bond. The Board quietly accepted his resignation.

As a state agency, colleges are limited, says Cox. "We are guided by state and federal regulations regarding how we treat our employees in terms of hiring, compensation, and firing. By state statute, we may not discriminate based on a previous criminal record."