The debate going on concerning the blanket fingerprinting and background checks of school employees has left me both frustrated and angry. Employers already have the right to check on employees for whom they have concerns, don’t they?

Our civil rights are guaranteed by the Constitution. Many courageous people have died defending these rights for us. It is our responsibility to insist on them for ourselves at the very least. For teachers to turn these rights over to the state as though they are mere possessions of the state, rather than valued citizens, is a bad example for students.

Statistics show that most children are molested by people in their own families or by trusted family friends. Paula Merritt Bangor

Schools have been asked to do so much in recent years beyond simply educating our children. As teachers have taken on added responsibilities little has been done to make the profession appealing in terms of both compensation and respect. Sadly, the efforts of Brewer teacher Suzanne Malis-Andersen are likely to do little to advance the cause because she so obviously doesn’t get it.

Malis-Andersen explains proudly that she is teaching her young charges to fight for what they think is right, but what she hasn’t explained (or figured out for herself) is that not every situation justifies a battle. Yes, the state handled this whole issue poorly, and I’m sure veteran teachers feel insulted that they have to be subjected to background checks, but isn’t that a small price to pay for our children’s safety?

Having attended the recent hearing on this matter in Augusta, I was impressed with the passion that drives Malis-Andersen in her quest, but I was also saddened that she hasn’t chosen a more important windmill to joust with. Even her own union agrees this law is constitutional, and most rational people would agree that, while an inconvenience, it is an invasion of no one’s privacy and is justified given what we know about the world today. Continue to teach your children well, Ms. Malis-Andersen, but don’t teach them that taking your ball and going home is a viable option in a free society. Joseph Clark Bangor

The media have given some attention to teachers who are expressing their concerns about the issue of mandatory fingerprinting which has been implemented by the state of Maine.

It is important to also remember that thousands of nonteaching employees are affected by this requirement. Their concerns about this matter should also be considered. Any forthcoming changes in these requirements must address the rights of support services employees as well as those of teachers. The issues of government intrusion and infringement on constitutional and individual rights, which this mandatory fingerprinting legislation creates, must be resolved.

There are much better and more simple solutions to the problem of protecting our children than those provided by this well-intended but inadequately considered legislation. David Small Norridgewock

On reading the Jan. 28 Bangor Daily News article, “Background check in jeopardy,” I do not agree with the Maine Education Association’s decision to favor repeal of the law.

We have a lot of positions that require background checks and many high positions require them. Do we want murderers on the police department? Do we want mafia leaders in charge of the FBI?

Any person who doesn’t wish to make sure we do not have rapists, kidnappers and murderers involved with teaching and tending our children should be elsewhere. We would be better off without them. Donald Arguin Old Town

I hope the Maine Legislature does not repeal the law requiring fingerprints and background checks of Maine school employees. In our efforts as a society to protect our most vulnerable citizens from our most dangerous, repealing the law would be an unfortunate step backward.

I do think the Legislature made a mistake in requiring the employees to pay the $49 fee. If my employer requires me to perform any act, including being fingerprinted, it’s the employer’s responsibility to pay the freight.

But I am surprised at the suggestions by some teachers that the fingerpring and background check is somehow a violation of their civil rights. I’m a little disappointed these same teachers have not given this important issue more balance.

My best guess is that the opposition to the law has taken it as a personal attack on their character. That’s understandable to a degree. However, when one looks deeper into the law’s intent, hurt feelings should give way to our common mission to ferret out criminals from the ranks of school employees, by the most reliable means available. Ronald Jandreau Treasurer Prevent Child Abuse Maine Presque Isle

Today’s “do good,” “anything to keep children safe” climate removes common sense from many decision. This law assumes those in education are more predisposed to child abuse than the normal population. I wonder just how many pedophiles there were in that target group of employees to warrant such a law? I don’t imagine many.

As Suzanne Malis-Andersen states, innocent people are being assumed guilty, which is just the opposite of the basis of our legal system. There is no probable cause to warrant fingerprinting. Don’t people have to offer references and list previous employment on applications that are then checked out by school administrators before hiring? This should be enough of a measure to ensure that reliable people are hired.

This law is unfair to one portion of the work force. It is reactionary and is pandering to the public’s unrealistic and unwarranted fear for children’s safety in school. School personnel should not be demeaned in this way. The law should be repealed. Rebecca Leggieri Valatie, N.Y.

Police have been asked to report teachers who are rude when they are being routinely fingerprinted?

Wow — that should help ease the teacher shortage. Karen Saum Bucksport

The Maine Education Association asked the Education Committee if it could hold its hearing on the changes during the upcoming February school break to enable educators to be able to attend the hearing and make their voices heard. The committee, knowing it is very difficult for any school employee to get time off during a school day, denied the request and intentionally scheduled it for next Thursday at 9 a.m. The very people who are affected by this law are being denied their right to be heard.

What good is a public hearing if the interested parties can’t attend? Because those affected people can’t be there, I am asking anyone who is a friend of educators, or defender of civil rights, to go and make yourself heard. Go to room 209 of the Augusta Armory next Thursday morning and support us. Be our voice in Augusta. Joyce Blakney Orrington