Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: It’s not good, but it’s not this bad
Next Post: Sanguinetti talks about why she’s qualified to step in as governor
Posted in:
* As we discussed Tuesday, Gov. Quinn issued an administrative order the other day removing a box from state job applications which indicated whether or not the applicant had been convicted of a crime. Agency employers are free to ask about applicants’ past during job interviews and are still free to conduct background checks. The “ban the box” push has succeeded in getting this done in several other states.
* The News Gazette editorial board doesn’t like the idea…
Proponents argue that minorities suffer disproportionately under the mandatory disclosure rule because they are arrested and imprisoned in greater numbers than whites. That claim is supported by the numbers, but people who get in trouble with the law aren’t selected at random.
They make trouble for themselves, one consequence being that their brushes with the law make them less attractive as employees. [Emphasis added.]
* It’s no secret that the national drug war has focused on minorities. Even though whites have higher substance use/abuse rates, blacks are arrested way more often…
Nearly 20 percent of whites have used cocaine, compared with 10 percent of blacks and Latinos, according to a 2011 survey from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration — the most recent data available.
Higher percentages of whites have also tried hallucinogens, marijuana, pain relievers like OxyContin, and stimulants like methamphetamine, according to the survey. Crack is more popular among blacks than whites, but not by much.
Still, blacks are arrested for drug possession more than three times as often as whites, according to a 2009 report from the advocacy group Human Rights Watch.
Of the 225,242 people who were serving time in state prisons for drug offenses in 2011, blacks made up 45 percent and whites comprised just 30 percent, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Jamie Fellner, author of the Human Rights Watch report, offered an explanation for this discrepancy.
“The race issue isn’t just that the judge is going, ‘Oh, black man, I’m gonna sentence you higher,’” she said. “The police go into low-income minority neighborhoods and that’s where they make most of their drug arrests. If they arrest you, now you have a ‘prior,’ so if you plead or get arrested again, you’re gonna have a higher sentence. There’s a kind of cumulative effect.”
So, yeah, black people do the crimes, but they also do a disproportionate amount of the time when compared to whites.
* If this administrative order helps us unwind the drug war’s horrific personal costs, then it’s a good thing and the right thing to do.
Of course, if it’s about hiring some alderman’s nephew who can’t otherwise get past the initial application, then that’s another story.
* Back to the News Gazette editorial…
Unfortunately, politics has as much to do with Quinn’s action as the hiring process. Quinn’s order gives him another means of selling himself to black voters, who polls indicate are among his strongest supporters. He won’t need that voting bloc in the March 2014 primary election now that his main opponent, Chicago’s William Daley, has withdrawn from the race. But black voters could play a crucial role in Quinn’s fight to win re-election in November 2014, and it’s apparent that Quinn will use the vast powers of his office to win their support.
Good politics can be good government.
posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, Oct 10, 13 @ 11:00 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: It’s not good, but it’s not this bad
Next Post: Sanguinetti talks about why she’s qualified to step in as governor
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
“Good politics can be good government.”
Channeling your inner Old Man Daley, Rich?
Comment by John Bambenek Thursday, Oct 10, 13 @ 11:03 am
These people committed the crimes. They made the decision to brake the law. If Governor Quinn wants to woo voters he should do so with an agenda that will improve their lives. I’m not sure how this helps them and if anything it hurts taxpayers who shouldn’t have to think twice about this kind of thing when dealing with a bureaucrat.
Last week you put up a post complaining about quinn’s stunts. This is another.
Comment by Shore Thursday, Oct 10, 13 @ 11:04 am
Geez, does the News Gazette want every conviction to carry a life sentence?
Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Oct 10, 13 @ 11:09 am
Here’s an idea for Quinn — rather than a useless gesture (since applicants can be asked about it anyway), why not pursue legislation to decriminalize drug possession?
It would be awesome if the Gov. could actually start making real efforts to solve problems. We could use a Gov. willing to work to solve problems.
Comment by Skeeter Thursday, Oct 10, 13 @ 11:11 am
“But black voters could play a crucial role in Quinn’s fight to win re-election in November 2014, and it’s apparent that Quinn will use the vast powers of his office to win their support.”
I think that PQ will use the “vast power of the IL GOP to shoot itself in the foot with black voters” to win the support of black voters.
PQ will win something like 90% of the A-A vote *regardless* of any of this stuff; the question will be the GOTV effort, and whether those who do vote, select *either* Guv candidate. I don’t think that this sort of stuff moves the needle on more than a handful of ‘unlikely’ voters.
Comment by Chris Thursday, Oct 10, 13 @ 11:12 am
===These people committed the crimes. They made the decision to brake the law. ===
First, referring to African-Americans as “these people” is not cool.
Second, our last three presidents have admitted to illegal drug use, including cocaine use by two of them.
They did the crime, but they were lucky and did no time. If they had done any time, they wouldn’t have been elected. Period.
It’s a stupid world sometimes. This may make it less stupid.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Oct 10, 13 @ 11:13 am
My father is white, was once rejected based on a prior disorderly conduct.
Lots of white folks get DUIs where I come from, I’m sure they’re thrilled to put those on an application 5 years later.
The News Gazette has this all backwards anyway, as Rich points out. If this initiative helps more minorities than whites, that’s because our justice system disproportionately hurts minorities more than whites.
Any attempt to mitigate those damages should be considered progress, not politics.
Comment by Small Town Liberal Thursday, Oct 10, 13 @ 11:16 am
Do you think population density in large urban areas has something to do with the percentage that get arrested vs. the percentage that admit using? It is much harder to police large geographic areas when compared to urban areas. Demographics most certainly change depending on location and proximity to large cities.
Comment by Phenomynous Thursday, Oct 10, 13 @ 11:26 am
Roosevelt University has been studying the drug issue for years and has found that Illinois has the nation’s largest racial disparity in who goes to prison for the lowest possession felony.
In Chicago, African Americans make up nearly 80% of those busted for possession of small amounts of pot, and closer to 90% of those convicted and incarcerated for the offense. Clearly some white kids who smoke weed aren’t getting stopped and frisked as often as their black counterparts.
Comment by reformer Thursday, Oct 10, 13 @ 11:32 am
No one should be denied anything because of an arrest. An arrest is not a conviction, its not even a charge. An arrest is jut the police officer taking you downtown and holding you. The prosecutor can still decide not to charge you for anything. Once charged, you are supposedly NOT GUILTY until convicted. So denying anyone anything due to just an arrest is pretty discrimnatory.
Only convictions should be able to be asked about. I like the suggestion a poster had yesterday. Only be able to ask about relavant convictions that happened in the last x years. Stupid actions, such as minor drug use, at age 18-21 shouldn’t affect a 45 year old.
Comment by mythoughtis Thursday, Oct 10, 13 @ 11:36 am
one more thing. rules doesn’t just eliminate drug crimes from consideration, but all crimes. why all the focus on drugs when it’s just one of dozens of crimes people commit? besides, most people know that drug dealers, not users, are the focus of law enforcement, Rich’s reference to our past presidents aside.
Comment by jim Thursday, Oct 10, 13 @ 11:36 am
Make underage drinking a felony and watch the U of I graduating class become unemployable.
Comment by Michelle Flaherty Thursday, Oct 10, 13 @ 11:38 am
—
* If this administrative order helps us unwind the drug war’s horrific personal costs, then it’s a good thing and the right thing to do.
—
I would say its better to unwind the drug war by doing just that, changing those laws. Vs treating symptoms. Treating symptoms never fixes the core issue and skirting around it just means we will continue to find other laws that need to change to fix MORE symptoms.
Silly way to go at it.
Comment by RonOglesby Thursday, Oct 10, 13 @ 11:38 am
michelle, LOL
Comment by steve schnorf Thursday, Oct 10, 13 @ 11:41 am
The way I read this is to eliminate an employer just automatically rejecting any application that has that box checked. You can still ask, but by that point the applicant is in front of you making an attempt to promote their positive credentials. If I’m reading it right, I agree.
Comment by A guy... Thursday, Oct 10, 13 @ 11:41 am
- Silly way to go at it. -
Not really. Did you notice how difficult it was to get the GA to pass medical marijuana?
You think they’re ready to end the drug war in Illinois?
Maybe someday, in the meantime these common sense actions make complete sense.
Comment by Small Town Liberal Thursday, Oct 10, 13 @ 11:46 am
Too many good people’s employment applications get thrown away without a look due to minor violations, both in government and the private sector. Much of the conditions in poor minority areas are the result of government decisions (bad drug polcy, bad schooling, court systems which hammer the poor while giving deference to wealthier litigants who can hire good attorneys, inability to police slumlords and demolish vacant buildings,etc.) I have a hard time taking the “personal responsibility” route for the third generation of lost children in neighborhoods like Chicago’s Englewood. I’ve been in these neighborhoods, and I am amazed at the few, especially males, who can make it past their teens with a clean record.
Good for Gov. Quinn. His move seems like a step in the right direction. And these records will be looked at later on in the process, so it’s not as if a triple murder will be hired.
Comment by Cook County Commoner Thursday, Oct 10, 13 @ 11:46 am
Fewer minorities have used illegal drugs? I don’t know if that is true, but one IDOC poster pointed out no inmate is there because of their own use of drugs, they are inmates because of selling drugs. A lot of drug sales and gang violence occurs in minority areas and police tend to patrol where crimes are highest.
Comment by Anon Thursday, Oct 10, 13 @ 11:48 am
Anon: “Fewer minorities have used illegal drugs? I don’t know if that is true…”
Then LOOK IT UP!
And then, and only then, comment.
Jeez.
– MrJM
Comment by MrJM Thursday, Oct 10, 13 @ 12:04 pm
===Then LOOK IT UP!===
This has been yet another edition of “What MrJM Said.”
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Oct 10, 13 @ 12:11 pm
All state employees should be required to disclose convictions for certain kinds of crimes, particularly kinds of white collar crimes such as fraud or identity theft. It’s not enough to say that agencies are free to ask. Applicants should be required to sign a statement. This would prevent someone “forgetting” to ask certain people.
I don’t necessarily think drug crimes should be included, particularly non violent offences. Also, this could be accomplished after the initial application, but before the official hiring.
Comment by SimonSez Thursday, Oct 10, 13 @ 12:11 pm
Can’t use “these people” “those people” “them people” when referring to African-Americans, but ok to use for other people? I don’t understand. In all honesty, please someone explain.
Comment by ChicagoDem Thursday, Oct 10, 13 @ 12:52 pm
ChicagoDem, no offense, but that response is typical of racists.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Oct 10, 13 @ 12:57 pm
The N-G espousing racist bs, what a surprise.
==Any attempt to mitigate those damages should be considered progress, not politics.==
Except it isn’t progress if everybody gets helped in the mind of racists.
==The way I read this is to eliminate an employer just automatically rejecting any application that has that box checked. You can still ask, but by that point the applicant is in front of you making an attempt to promote their positive credentials. If I’m reading it right, I agree.==
That is exactly what is happening. And there will still be background checks, so it isn’t like people will just skirt through by lying.
==police tend to patrol where crimes are highest==
You obviously don’t know how policing works in the actuality of government and politics or what happens when there are attempts to actually shift police resources to “where crimes are highest.”
Comment by Precinct Captain Thursday, Oct 10, 13 @ 1:04 pm
@ Anon 11:48 a.m. “one IDOC poster pointed out no inmate is there because of their own use of drugs, they are inmates because of selling drugs.”
That IDOC poster is wrong. Even if the charge isn’t possession of a controlled substance, most people who are in prison (or jail) are there because of substance abuse, be it drugs or alcohol.
Comment by Joan P. Thursday, Oct 10, 13 @ 1:09 pm
@Shore
They did the crime, but they also did the time (or whatever other punishment a judge or someone inherently more qualified than a manager reviewing job applications decided).
The recidivism rate wouldn’t be as high if felons were given an equal chance to integrate into society, and *that* is your payoff. Less crime, they pay taxes, and we’re not footing the bill for jail time.
Comment by Stuff happens Thursday, Oct 10, 13 @ 1:13 pm
-ChicagoDem, no offense, but that response is typical of racists.-
And that comment is typical of someone who puts political correctness above common sense.
Comment by The AntiObama Thursday, Oct 10, 13 @ 3:31 pm
===typical of someone who puts political correctness above common sense. ===
I don’t equate racism with political correctness.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Oct 10, 13 @ 3:33 pm
Wow…people who use these words are racist. Got it. I guess the meaning of racist has dramatically changed?
Comment by ChicagoDem Thursday, Oct 10, 13 @ 3:52 pm
==Wow…people who use these words are racist. Got it. I guess the meaning of racist has dramatically changed?==
Ignorant and dense. They go well together.
Comment by Precinct Captain Thursday, Oct 10, 13 @ 4:12 pm
From: “It’s not good, but it’s not this bad”
“* And as I’ve pointed out before, this could also be a real problem…Three of the panel’s four Republican members are running for higher office, including Senator Brady, who announced a run for governor soon after being named to the panel. All of the other members but one face reelection in 2014.”
From ““They make trouble for themselves””
“Good politics can be good government.”
Can be - but usually not from my view and experience.
Comment by sal-says Thursday, Oct 10, 13 @ 4:15 pm
‘Ban the box’ is a nice news item for Step 1 in the hiring process. Since we do some business with the state we are required to check CANTS, Nurse Registry, ISP fingerprint, sex offender, drug test, transcripts, and several other background checks before any offer can be made. If you get a negative hit in Step 1, 2, or 3 what does it matter? You are still dropped from consideration for employment.
Comment by zatoichi Thursday, Oct 10, 13 @ 4:51 pm
Rich-
In context, “they” are “people who get in trouble with the law.” Read it again:
“Proponents argue that minorities suffer disproportionately under the mandatory disclosure rule because they are arrested and imprisoned in greater numbers than whites. That claim is supported by the numbers, but people who get in trouble with the law aren’t selected at random.
They make trouble for themselves, one consequence being that their brushes with the law make them less attractive as employees.”
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Oct 10, 13 @ 5:02 pm