Interim Chancellor Barbara J. Wilson said suggestions for changes in the university's expanded background check policy are being seriously considered.
But, she said, the longer the policy is debated, the more detrimental it becomes for units that currently are hiring.
"The more this goes on, the more units are hampered," she told members of the Senate Executive Committee at their Oct. 12 meeting. "We have a given grace period, but it doesn't go to December. That's a risk we have to acknowledge."
The policy originally was slated to go into effect Oct. 5. On Sept. 28, Wilson announced a Nov. 1 grace period for the campus to comply.
The offer was made after U. of I. President Timothy L. Killeen had consulted with members of the board of trustees following senators' overwhelming rejection of the policy at their Sept. 21 meeting.
Senators at that meeting said the policy did not offer enough candidate data protections, nor did it follow background check guidelines established by the American Association of University Professors.
Wilson said the senates at UIC and UIS had made similar requests for more time to suggest changes, and that suggestions on the Urbana campus have come to the Office of the Provost from all across campus.
The new policy does not apply to graduate students employed by the university or to current employees who apply for campus positions.
At the Oct. 12 meeting, senators agreed to forward revision suggestions from the senate's General University Policy and Equal Opportunity and Inclusion committees to Christophe Pierre, the university's vice president for academic affairs. The president has asked Pierre's office to convene a working group to consider revisions to the policy. The working group, which has had its first meeting, will consider the senators' suggestions and make a recommendation to the president. The president will present any recommendations to the board at its January meeting.
Senators, meanwhile, continue to bristle at the new policy, which for years has been conducted on sensitive university positions, but this year was expanded to include faculty members.
"Many of us see this as a discriminatory document," said Kathryn Oberdeck, a professor of history and the chair of the Equal Opportunity and Inclusion Committee.
She recommended that faculty members press the board to reconsider the policy altogether, but said the EOI committee had made a long list of suggested changes if it is implemented.
The changes include language improvements to better identify who is covered under the policy, how their information is gathered and protected by the university, and a longer review timeframe and appeals process for candidates negatively affected by background findings.
"We make these recommendations with the caveat that the currently formulated background check policy undermines the university's stated commitment to diversity," the EOI states in the introduction to its report. "A policy that examines ... the relation of previous convictions to suitability for positions in the context of a system of mass incarceration that implicates people of color at vastly higher rates than the rest of the population cannot be anything but discriminatory no matter how carefully the implementation plan is designed."
A suggestion by the GUP committee includes adding a provision that provides consultation to the hiring unit after a negative decision has been rendered. It also suggests creating a "blind process review" led by faculty members to determine whether the policy is being applied fairly.
Edward J. Feser, the interim vice chancellor for academic affairs and provost, said some of the suggestions his office has received would improve the policy. He said the input would lead to a policy that would be held up as a positive example nationally.
He said the process does not summarily rule out candidates with a criminal past and gives campus hirers discretion for determining whether a previous crime has any effect on a candidate's employment.
"Some employers use the background check in a very crude way," Feser said, eliminating candidates just because of a positive "hit."
The U. of I. policy is "progressive and as forward-thinking as we can be in the implementation."
He said the policy provides leeway that gives candidates the opportunity to show they have moved past their prior criminal conviction.
"That might open up, in an unpredictable way, with candidates saying, ‘That's the place I'd like to work because they'll give me a fair shot,’" he said.
Abbas Benmamoun, the vice provost for faculty affairs and academic policies, said the office continues to work with the university's legal department to ensure that all federal guidelines are being followed.
He said the policy is in line with peer institutions in and outside the Big Ten.
"We'll do all we can to make the process fair," he said. "It won't solve all of the concerns you've had, but we are working to provide a fair and safe and environment for campus and candidates."
"If you don't do (background checks) and something bad happens on campus, it's seen as an employment negative," said Renée Romano, the vice chancellor for student affairs. "To me, this (policy) sets us apart. It could be a model."