From: "E. ALLEN SMITH" <EALLENSMITH@mbcl.rutgers.edu>
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 95 11:32:59 PST
To: hal9001@panix.com
Subject: Re: Secret Clearance
Message-ID: <01HYHO17G39Y9S3REI@mbcl.rutgers.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


From:	IN%"hal9001@panix.com"  "Robert A. Rosenberg"  6-DEC-1995 12:50:58.52

The problem is that they are subject to blackmailed/bribed/subversion ONLY
because the employer will use the info as an excuse for firing/restricting
the employee. If someone has a "skeleton in the closet" such as being gay,
so long as the employer does not discrimate against gays who INFORM the
employer of their sexual orientation or if the employer does not care about
the person being gay (ie: removes it a potential blackmail threat) there is
no problem so far as I can see. It is only when there is something that is
WORK RELATED which would affect the person's performance if not known that
the question of a background check is relevant.
-------------------
	Unfortunately, this only works if one assumes that work is the only
thing that is valuable in the person's life. Blackmail can easily be used
against someone who is afraid of some information emerging to their family,
for instance. This perspective still isn't an excuse for disallowing gays,
however... the person who should be held responsible for such problems is
the person who responds negatively to the revelation. In other words, if the
person's family would react negatively to the person being gay, that's the
family's problem, and should be treated as such.
	-Allen