The April 20 edition of the Bangor Daily News contained two letters regarding my stand on the fingerprinting issue. By coincidence, both came from my hometown, Presque Isle. In the interest of furthering debate, I’d like to respond.

One letter from my kindergarten teacher (1948) supported me. Thank you, Marion Fillmore. The second letter disagreed with me and asked questions that deserve answers.

Roland Jandreau asked, “Did he take the time to educate himself about the history of this law before throwing his career off a cliff?” The answer is yes. Once the governor vetoed the bill that restricted fingerprinting and criminal investigation to new hires I knew, with my certificate due to be renewed in July 2001, that I had to make a decision. In the summer I read about witch-hunts, Henry David Thoreau, and the issues in this law.

Last fall I read the material prepared by MEAF (Maine Educators Against Fingerprinting) (slipperyslope.org). By then I was convinced. Perhaps a lifetime of thinking about America (college, Vietnam, graduate school and 19 years teaching at Belfast Area High School) convinced me.

Just for the record, I did not resign. I am not resigned. I refuse to cooperate with an unjust law. I am fighting for my job and my principles in the best way I know. This July my school board will have to fire me for not being certified.

Jandreau asked, “Did he research child abuse in Maine in order to balance his freedom from intrusion by the state against the protection this law provides our young and vulnerable?” Again, yes. Nationally, 85 percent of child abuse is in the home. Three-tenths of one percent is in school. But in Maine three-fourths of the school abusers have no record of child abuse. That means if we lined up one thousand abused children, 850 are victims in the home.

Three are victims in school, one by a person with a previous record and it’s doubtful there’s even one case a year in Maine. Are we to spend nearly a million dollars on the one child when it might be better spent on the 850? No one likes to think in these terms; child abuse is too horrible to be reduced to a math problem, but we are thinking more about the one than the 850.

The Maine Department of Human Services 1999 Report on Referrals noted, “There were 1264 Appropriate reports which were not assigned for assessment due to Insufficient Staff.” (MEAF fact sheet.) It seems wrong to spend money investigating school staff when it might be better used elsewhere.

Jandreau extends the “just one child” argument further when he says the law “… might not even save one.” But, he contends, sexual predators will stay out of education because the law “closes a window of opportunity that heretofore was wide open.” This assumes that local administrators do not check the people they hire. That’s incorrect. Nor is administrative incompetence a reason for me to give up my civil rights.

Jandreau lists his own fingerprinting experience when he was hired. The law the governor vetoed would have followed that common practice. According to the MEA, no northeastern state requires fingerprinting of all school personnel. Jandreau says if the problem were explained to him and that if taking his prints was part of the solution, he would have been all for it. However, taking my prints and checking my background through Augusta and Washington cannot solve the problem of child abuse. The people of Belfast know best if I have abused their children for the last 19 years.

This brings up another problem with the law. It leaves the public with the mistaken notion that their children are safer after checking all school personnel. That is false, for present actions are not checked, only records. Like it or not, we are forced to rely upon local administrators and local police officials to check current actions by school personnel, just as for any other citizen.

There are other costs of the current law. It adds to the climate of fear and distrust at the bottom of the anxiety that led to the law in the first place. Every American parent, unfortunately, has reason to fear for children’s safety in school. Columbine stands for more than one incident; it signifies a gnawing realization that in our extended peace and prosperity something is horribly wrong.

When we feel confused about what is wrong, we can grow anxious, even paranoid. In an effort to reassure ourselves, we strike out at some handy, vulnerable target, some scapegoat. But this does not work; it only makes us feel worse about ourselves, particularly in the long run.

Even more importantly, the law violates some basic American principles:

1. A person is innocent until proven guilty;

2. An individual cannot be charged with a crime because he is in a group in which some person at some time may have committed a crime;

3. Authorities must have probable cause before they investigate a person. These are hard won rights that I am reluctant to surrender. Jandreau and others have said they did not mind being fingerprinted and investigated. While it’s their right to waive their rights, they have no right to give up my rights or anyone else’s. I don’t give them up. In part I went to Vietnam to pay for my and others’ rights and no one can give them away or take them away. That’s what “inalienable” means in the Declaration of Independence. There are few cases where giving up human and civil rights are beneficial; there are no cases where scapegoating is beneficial.

I realize, sorrowfully, that legal precedents are against my position. However, for too many years legal precedents also supported slavery and its evil child, segregation. Idealists who could not ignore our founding ideal that all men are created equal changed those evils. I revere people like William Lloyd Garrison, Henry David Thoreau, and Martin Luther King who stood against prevailing laws and precedents because those laws and precedents were wrong.

You might dismiss me as someone who has read too many books and seen too little of real life. Or, as a recent letter to the Republican Journal put it, you might think I am just “scum” who should be eliminated from education. Or you might consider three refusers in Waldo County: a retired Marine Corps colonel, a former sheriff and me, a liberal social studies teacher. I do not presume to speak for those men. Probably we arrived at our conclusions via different routes. But when three such apparently different people agree, perhaps our point is worth considering.

Jandreau claims that only a “handful” of teachers are protesting. I’ve always thought that one of the beauties of America was that it protected its “handfuls” against the majority, even when the “handful” was unpopular or even obnoxious. But is it only a handful? There are 59 people ahead of me refusing to cooperate with this law. I’m proud of joining that line. More have protested the law. A larger number resents being treated like suspects.

I’m glad Jandreau gave me an excuse to write. I hope that all Mainers will rethink this issue. Ask your teachers how they feel about fingerprinting and criminal background checks.

While you’re discussing the issue, consider if it could apply to you. Is this a further state intrusion into our private lives? Imagine that you own a red pickup. Somewhere in the state there’s a convenience store robbery and a child is killed. A red pickup drives away from the scene.

The state orders everyone with a red pickup in Maine to report to a state police station, be fingerprinted and have a criminal background check. That will cost you fifty dollars. If you don’t cooperate, you’ll lose your license and your pickup. If you do have a criminal record you’ll possibly lose your license and pickup, whether or not that record had anything to do with the robbery and murder. Every time you re-register the red pickup you will be refingerprinted and reinvestigated. If you buy a red pickup you will also be subject to that law. Soon there won’t be many red pickups on the road. For teachers, that red pickup is our profession – we love driving it, but maybe the cost is getting too high.

If, after discussing the issue, the majority of Mainers feels the law is a good idea, it will stand. If, however, a majority thinks the law delivers too little at too great a cost, then I hope Mainers will take action by contacting legislators and writing the governor. Even though the governor and I totally disagree on this issue, he responded to every e-mail I’ve sent him over the last two years.

My education in American history tells me that democracy will work in the end; that ordinary citizens, when informed, make good decisions.

Steven Smith is a teacher at Belfast Area High School.