Reflective Essay

ERH-102

Maj. Garriott

Harrison Robinson

A Journey from Wrong to Right

By Harrison Robinson

Help Received: Writing Center, Maj Garriott, and Cadet Brittany Szczepanik

               Writing has always been my weakest subject, for good reason, yet I’ve continuously worked to improve.  My first semester at VMI the ERH-101 professor taught me what it meant to write in college, giving me a basic understanding of how to write a thesis and construct a paper using the skills in the “Everyday Writer” and “Writing about Writing” textbooks.  Things changed in the second semester when I entered ERH-102 for the first time. The ERH professor was a lot more demanding when it came to papers, wanting me to dig deeper thereby allowing me to self-improve over the course of the semester. While being pushed by this teacher I realized several things I need to work on in my writing. The most prevalent was the purpose of a thesis in my papers.  I needed to establish my argument in the main body and keep with that main thought throughout the paper by making sure my argument is clear in each paragraph. This way my audience will understand what I will be arguing and can follow my train of thought more clearly.

            The first writing prompt I was assigned in ERH-102 was ‘Reading and Writing as a Believer and Doubter, Part 1’. The assignment was to select a law or controversial topic, a topic we felt strongly about then argue from the opposite view point of our belief. The topic I choose to write about was background checks on applicants with a criminal history. To begin this paper I tried to sum up everything I was thinking and put it into my opening paragraph, giving the reader information I thought they needed to understand my thought process.  

“Background checks have been around for a long time. They give your future employer references from your past employments, and gives them a record of accomplishment and misdeeds you have done in your life. Whether you are proud of that past or not. That is where my argument arises. People seeking employment that have bad medical history or mental problems do not have to tell their future employer about it until later in the application process. This is to help them since they are at a disadvantage on an equal playing field. The same however, cannot be, said for people with a prior criminal history.  People seeking employment that have had prior criminal convictions have to tell the employer at the start of the process. This makes it very hard for people with prior criminal history to get a job. Even if they are the most qualified for the job, because many employers will take quick judgement on the prospective employee without first hearing them out first. This is why I feel like the law needs to change, so that like with mental illness and medical history, the information on your criminal history should not be, discussed until the end of the application process. Making it easier for people with previous criminal convictions to get a job.” (Background Checks on Applicants with Criminal History)

In this part of the opening paragraph I don’t clearly state my thesis even with all the information included in my introductory paragraph. Instead, I give a lot of minor thesis statements that fail to come together based on my actual idea for my argument.  The argument was that the nation needs to change The Fair Credit Reporting Act so that questions about criminal history are not asked until the end of the application process.

“Background checks have been around for a long time. They give future employers references from your past employments, and gives them a record of accomplishments and misdeeds you have done in your life. That is where my problem with the Fair Credit Reporting Act arises. Prospective employees seeking employment that have bad medical history or mental problems do not have to tell their future employer about it until later in the application process. This helps them since they are at a disadvantage on an equal playing field with normal people. The same however, cannot be, said for people with a prior criminal history.  People seeking employment that have had prior criminal convictions that extends to people with misdemeanors as well as class D and class C felonies must tell the employer at the start of the process. This makes it very hard for people with misdemeanors and low level felonies to get a job. Even if they are the most qualified for the job in question, because many employers will take quick judgement on the prospective employee without first hearing them out. Therefore, I feel like the Fair Credit Reporting Act needs to change, so that like with mental illness and medical history, the information on your criminal history should not be, discussed until the end of the application process. Making it easier for people with misdemeanors as well as class D and class C felonies to get jobs with their records.” (Background Checks on Applicants with Criminal History – Revisions)

In the paragraph revision, I expanded upon my thoughts to make the argument more centralized and focused.  I achieved this by clearly stating my argument in the thesis and outlining the points of my argument.  Also, I could think more about the details of my argument and add-in the part on the certain types of criminals that should help.

            The second prompt of the semester was the same one as before “Reading and Writing as a Believe and Doubter, Part 2” only for this prompt I needed to take the opposite point of view from my previous paper. So, I was going to have to argue for my original ideology on the topic of background checks on people with criminal history however, my opinion had been shifted by the Part 1 assignment. I addressed this with my professor during a meeting saying how I didn’t know what to write in response.  The teacher said I needed to “Argue the gray area on this topic. That way I could find a middle ground with the people I would be arguing with.” So, in doing this I tried to push this into my thesis argument instead of trying to inform my reader.

“The point of the Background Check on prospective employees is so the employer can make a good decision about whether they should hire the said prospective employee. It is the right of the employer to decide whether not they want to hire the prospective employee. This means that the employer should be allowed access to the prospective employee’s information to an extent that pertains to the job the prospective employee is applying for.  This includes people’s criminal records whether that be a misdemeanor or a felony. The purpose of these background checks is to give employer the needed information to decide on whether the employer should hire the prospective employee into their place of business. It is not the peoples personal right to have a job. Nowhere in the constitution does it say the “People have a right to have a job from employers.”. This is what changing the Fair Credit Reporting Act so it easier for people with prior criminal convictions is not a good idea, because it violates the employers right to a sufficient workforce.” (Background Checks: Don’t Make It Easier for Criminals Applying for Jobs)

In this introductory paragraph, I attempted to find the gray to start my argument however, while I was trying to do this I didn’t state my argument. Instead I just have a confusing paragraph about not changing the fair credit reporting act. 

“A movement called “Ban the Box” is trying to change the Fair Credit Reporting Act. This movement is trying to make it so that the check box for criminal activity at the beginning of the application is removed and placed at the end of the application process. The point of the background checks on prospective employees is to give the employer important information about the prospective employee, that way the employer can decide about hiring the prospective employee. It is the right of the employer to decide whether not they want to hire the prospective employee. This means that the employer should be allowed access to the prospective employee’s information to an extent that pertains to the job for which the prospective employee is applying.  This includes applicants with criminal records, whether that be a misdemeanor or a felony. The purpose of these background checks is to give employer the needed information to decide on whether the employer should hire the prospective employee into their place of business. It is not the peoples personal right to have a job. Nowhere in the constitution does it say the “People have a right to have a job from employers.”. Therefore, changing the Fair Credit Reporting Act so it easier for people with prior criminal convictions is not a good idea, because it violates the employers right to a sufficient workforce.” (Background Checks: Don’t Make It Easier for Criminals Applying for Jobs – Revisions)

In this I forget trying to find a gray area from my introduction instead choosing to argue my point as the exact opposite like the prompt wanted. In doing so I could clearly state what I wanted to do with The Fair Credit Reporting Act. Instead choosing to move my common ground ideas into my conclusion of the paper. In doing this I could clean up my argument and state it in my thesis so that the audience would better understand what I’m talking about in the paper.

            As an International Studies major I must write about my positions a lot for most of my classes.  Therefore, ERH-102 is more than just a class with a grade that will be calculated into my overall GPA each year. It is the basis for how I will write argumentative and position papers for the rest of my cadetship as an International Studies major. ERH-102 helped me to realize what I have been doing wrong with my arguments and helped me fix it in a solid position. Because of this I will be able to apply what I learned in ERH-102 for the rest of my cadetship.

Work Cited

“Background Checks on Applicants with Criminal History,” ERH 102 Paper, VMI, 2017.

“Background Checks on Applicants with Criminal History – Revisions,” ERH 102 Paper, VMI, 2017.

 “Background Checks: Don’t Make It Easier for Criminals Applying for Jobs,” ERH 102 Paper, VMI, 2017

“Background Checks: Don’t Make It Easier for Criminals Applying for Jobs – Revisions,” ERH 102 Paper, VMI, 2017

Garriott, Deidre, (“Background Checks: Don’t Make It Easier for Criminals Applying for Jobs” ERH 102 Comment on writing, VMI, 2017.

Reflective Essay

ERH-102

Maj. Garriott

Harrison Robinson

A Journey from Wrong to Right

By Harrison Robinson

  For me, writing has always been a subject that was a weakness. I always found writing to be a very hard subject for me to get a handle on, I have trouble understanding the writing process and all the technics used in ERH 102.  Coming into this semester I was not expecting ERH 102 to be as hard as it would turn out to be, for ERH 101 I had this bad habit of not being able to organize my thots for my arguments to support my thesis. Instead I would just state my thesis and write down all my ideas in the essay instead of organizing and clarifying, to help the reader. This is a bad habit that has carried over into ERH 102 is shown in both of my essays. However, with these latest papers in ERH I have been able to correct my mistakes and have come to understand what I have been doing wrong.  The other most notable problem that I have had is my grammar in my papers. This is mostly due to my dyslexia which I have had since I was a little kid, it most often affects the reader because they have a hard time understanding what I am saying in a certain sentence. It is a lot better than it used to be and has improved greatly this year especially since if affects my grade more with new teachers.

When I started ERH 102, we were give a prompt on arguing for a law that you politically were against and that we would spend most of the semester arguing about the law or topic that you choose.  The topic I choose was Background Checkson Criminals Applying for Jobs, a topic I felt like I knew a lot about and would be able to have interesting research. I approached my first paper like I did all my papers before it doing a lot of research on a topic and just throwing it into an essay with no flow or organization. Hoeing that the reader would be able to understand my train of thought, instead of me simplifying it so that anyone could understand the topic I was arguing.

Activity1

This semester I personally have learned so much about my writing. I learned to focus more on the prompt instead off going off topic and then diverting back to what i was saying. Now i state my topic sentence for the paragraph and give three facts or statements o back the topic sentence up. Making my papers more organized and flow better.

Activity 2

Grammar and Spelling are my two big problems on my papers, because of my dyslexia i missed spelling word and don’t realize or i will use the wrong word and it cause my papers to feel choppy or not make sense.

Activity3

I remember on the first paper i got back this year Maj. Garriott destroyed me on this one paragraph say that it just didn’t make sense at all and looking back though i the paragraph made sense to me however im use to reading may own messed up writing style. Because she didn’t understand my bad grammar.

Activity 4

Going into 102 i felt that not much was going to change compared to last semester prompts would just be a little harder and i would have to put more words on paper. This semester however my writing has greatly improved i can stay on topic and not go on about not important material. My grammar skills have also improved significantly causing my papers to flow better and be easier to read.

Activity5

“This law change will help the criminal justice department because of the lack of funds provided by the United States government as well as the fact that they are excessively understaffed to handle so many criminal cases a year (Department of Justice).” This shows how my grammar can cause problems in my writing. This whole sentence got marked on my Paper 1 first draft because it didn’t make sense

“Changing this law will also help the federal, state, and local governments by gaining as well as saving them money. The government will get more money because now the people that did not have jobs will be able to get them. In doing this more of these people will be able to pay taxes to the government. With so many previous criminal and past drug, offenders gaining jobs it will get a lot of them off government operated support systems that drain the government of billions of dollars every year as well. Instead transforming those people into taxpayers that pay the government doesn’t have to worry about taking care of anymore.” This shows the problem i have with going off topic when i start talking about drugs in the middle of the paragraph. Instead of talking about how the law change would affect the government on all levels.

Activity 6

Both of these show the problems i had when writing papers at the start of the semester. Both with how grammar effected my paper comprehension and how i would get off topic in my writings.

Activity1

Does not show development in his papers, only talking about how bad he is at writing Thesis. He says “He has a problem with thesis statements, because he has a problem with thesis statements.”

Activity 2

I would give it a 2, because it felt very simplistic and he wasn’t talking to the audience correctly he was just making a statement.

Activity 3

Its has flaws in grammar , mechanics, doesn’t craft the audience. I disagree however mostly because i hate it when people make a statement then backs it up with the same statement.

Activity 4

The prompt is about how you have improved your writing. The student however only talked about how he improved in working on writing, not his actual writing in the papers.

Activity 5

Focus on the prompt. Talk about your actual Writing in the papers not about your work ethic.

Assignment 2

ERH-102

Maj. Garriott

Harrison Robinson

4/5/17

Background Checks Job Applications

The point of the Background Check on prospective employees is so the employer can make a good decision about whether they should hire the said prospective employee. It is the right of the employer to decide whether not they want to hire the prospective employee. This means that the employer should be allowed access to the prospective employee’s information to an extent that pertains to the job the prospective employee is applying for.  This includes people’s criminal records whether that be a misdemeanor or a felony. The purpose of these background checks is to give employer the needed information to decide on whether the employer should hire the prospective employee into their place of business. It is not the peoples personal right to have a job. Nowhere in the constitution does it say the “People have a right to have a job from employers.”. This is what changing the Fair Credit Reporting Act so it easier for people with prior criminal convictions is not a good idea, because it violates the employers right to a sufficient workforce.

The Fair Credit Reporting Act is the primary law governing background checks in the United States (A Matter of Fact). The FCRA purpose is to promote the accuracy, fairness, and privacy of information in the files of consumer reporting agencies (Fair Credit Reporting Act [PDF]). The Fair Credit Reporting Act does this with help of the FTC and the EEOC the two departments responsible for making sure that the Fair Credit Reporting Act is followed.

Challenges of the Fair Credit Reporting Act have gone to the Supreme Court before with the case of NASA vs. Nelson. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the employers saying that “Reasonable investigations of applicants and employees aid the Government in ensuring the security of its facilities and in employing a competent, reliable workforce.”(NASA vs. Nelson). This shows that it is unconstitutional to violate the employers right to a background check in the job application process. For it is necessary that the employer have a reliable workforce. The Supreme Court also states that “the Government has good reason to ask employees about their recent illegal-drug use. Like any employer, the Government is entitled to have its projects staffed by reliable, law-abiding persons who will ‘efficiently and effectively’ discharge their duties. Questions about illegal drug use are a useful way of figuring out which persons have these characteristics.” (NASA vs. Nelson). This statement by the Supreme Court implies how important it is for employers to have information about a prospective employee’s background. So, that they can better understand their character as a person and how that will affect their job in the workplace. People will try and make the argument about how this court case is about a government job problem not one in the private sector. This case is relevant to both since the government is an employer just like businesses in the private sector.

People applying for jobs also have a chose to get their records sealed or expunged. This is something that can happen for people with either misdemeanors and felonies . Although both have similar processes misdemeanors are sealed or expunged a lot easier the felonies (Help for Felons). This only includes class levels D and C felonies since class level B is life in prison and class level A is life in prison no parole or the Death Sentence. It differs from state-to-state; however, you first need to check to see if you are eligible to have your record expunged or sealed (Expunge a Misdemeanor From Your Record). Then you must go through the court system fill out the correct paper work and make a court appearance (Expunge a Misdemeanor From Your Record).  Doing this will get most misdemeanors and felonies cleared from your record or it will have them sealed away in your record (Expunge a Misdemeanor From Your Record).

If the Fair Credit Reporting Act is changed so that prospective employees don’t have too state, there criminal records till the end of the application process it will have some serious effects on employers. The employer has a right to a sound and reliable workforce by doing this you are putting them at risk. For example, say a person convicted of theft about 20 years ago gets a job working at a bank, because they are qualified and can convince the employer that they are best for the job even though they have been convicted of theft in the past. Then the person in question takes money from the bank to use herself. This is partly the employers fault but the problem would also lay with the change in the law. What is to say that the said employer couldn’t have had more time to make this decision if he had found out earlier in the application process. Another great example of how this would hurt the employer is if a person convicted of rape were to get a teaching job in a high school. Say the person in question were to explain to the employer how he and this girl were dating and he was 19 and she was 17 and they had sex. The parents found out and convicted him of a raping their daughter and she goes along with it, but it was consensual. The employer understands and gives this guy a chance since he is completely over qualified for the job. A few month later the guy get discovered having a sexual affair with some student and is arrested. This looks horrible on the school in question for hiring a rapist pervert. That is the kind of effect the Fair Credit Reporting Act change can have on peoples work environments.

Some people are deserving of second chances, not everyone that has committed a crime did it for bad reasons. Maybe they stole from a store because their family was going hungry and they had no other options. They could have been protecting a loved on when they assaulted that person. Everyone has a story about their past good or bad. There are people out there that have committed crimes for bad reasons as well. It is for these people that the system is in place to stop. This turns into a moral issue in people’s eyes because some people do deserve a second chance others however don’t deserve anything at all.  Therefore, the Fair Credit Reporting Act needs to stay the way it is now with the questions about prior convictions at the beginning of the application process not the very end. This way the morality stays out of it and the decision can be un bias.

To appease people with opposite views on this topic or people who are on the fence with this very gray moral issue. Maybe the law could be changed so that the explanation can be more detailed at the start of the application process giving people with prior criminal convictions more of a chance. This would be a lot more practical compared to changing the law entirely so the criminals have it so much easier people with criminal convictions. Also, it gives the employer more of a chance to look at the employees past before deciding whether to hire the said person. Thereby minimizing the risk level involved in changing the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

Changing the Fair Credit Reporting Act so much is not a good idea because it will affect the employers personal rights. If a person wants to get a job and they have a prior conviction the can get that conviction expunged or sealed so that it will not affect them when applying for a job. Also the effect on the employers work place will be great as well as dangerous. This is why a simpler fix like giving the people with prior convictions more time at the beginning of the application process that why the prospective employee could explain and the employer has time to think it over. This be a much better way to fix the Fair Credit Reporting Act that is far from both parties stand points.

Work Cited

1. Rod Fliegel, William Simmons on January 24, 2011. “Insight.” S. Supreme Court Holds That Constitutional Privacy Rights Do Not Restrict the Government’s Discretion to Background Check Federal Contractors | Littler Mendelson P.C.N.p., 24 Jan. 2011. Web. 05 Apr . 2017.
2. Background CheckLaws & Regulations For Private Employers.”A Matter of Fact. N.p., n.d. Web. <http://www.amof.info/gov-links.htm#FCRA>.
3. “FairCredit Reporting ” Dictionary of Marketing Communications (n.d.): n. pag. FELONY Web. Expungement.” Help For Felons. N.p., n.d. Web. 05 Apr. 2017. http://www.helpforfelons.org/felony-expungement-sealing/
4. “Expunging A MISDEMEANOR CHARGE.” Expunging a MISDEMEANOR CHARGE | Expunge a Misdemeanor From Your Record | Expungement Info. N.p., n.d. Web. 05 Apr . 2017. <http://www.clearupmyrecord.com/expunging-a-misdemeanor-charge.php>.
5. FELONEY ” Help For Felons. N.p., n.d. Web. 05APR. 2017. <http://www.helpforfelons.org felony -expungement-sealing/>.

Assignment 2

ERH-102

Maj. Garriott

Harrison Robinson

4/5/17

Background Checks: Job Applications

The point of the Background Check on prospective employees is so the employer can make a good decision about whether they should hire the said prospective employee. It is the right of the employer to decide whether not they if they want to hire the prospective employee. This means that the employer should be allowed access to the prospective employee’s information to an extent that pertains to the job the prospective employee is applying for.  This includes people’s criminal records whether that be a misdemeanor of a felony. The purpose of these background checks is to give employer the needed information to decide on whether the employer should hire the prospective employee into their place of business. It is not the peoples personal right to have a job. Nowhere in the constitution does it say the “People have a right to have a job from employers.”. Therefore, business is in the private sector the government has influence but not control.

1) The Violancein video games that can scare children.  Parent’s don’t have to buy the games for childern.

Parent’s Love there kids so they will be protective. Appeal to logos to try and sway the parents.

On paper one I really learned how to structure and write my papers. My biggest struggle has been keeping good flow in all of my previous papers. I also learned how to structure my paragraphs so they go topice sentence then arguments. In the argument there must be some kind of common ground. Must have a sound thesis statement that was you whole paper starts off in the right direction.

Assignment 1

ERH-102

Maj. Garriott

Harrison Robinson

2/21/17

Help Received:

Writing Center, Cadet Brad Agee, and Major Garriott

Background Checks

Members of the 115^th House of Representatives we have a problem in the work force when it comes to job applications process and that is the Fair Credit Reporting Act. More specifically the pert that involves employers doing background checks on prospective employees. Background checks have been around for a long time. They give your future employer references from your past employments, and gives them a record of accomplishment and misdeeds you have done in your life. Whether you are proud of that past or not. That is where my argument arises. People seeking employment that have bad medical history or mental problems do not have to tell their future employer about it until later in the application process. This is to help them since they are at a disadvantage on an equal playing field. The same however, cannot be, said for people with a prior criminal history.  People seeking employment that have had prior criminal convictions have to tell the employer at the start of the process. This makes it very hard for people with prior criminal history to get a job. Even if they are the most qualified for the job, because many employers will take quick judgement on the prospective employee without first hearing them out first. This is why I feel like the law needs to change, so that like with mental illness and medical history, the information on your criminal history should not be, discussed until the end of the application process. Making it easier for people with previous criminal convictions to get a jobs.

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) enforces a federal law that regulates background reports for employment, and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) enforces federal laws against employment discrimination (EEOC Employer). These two federal departments are the ruling bodies when it comes to background checks they determine what is right and what is wrong according to the law. The FTC regulates background checks so that employers do not over extend into a prospective employee’s background to much by enforcing the rules of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) (EEOC Employees). In addition, they are in place to make sure that employers do not ask any mental or medical questions on until you have the job (EEOC Employees). The EEOC job is to stop employment discrimination of any kind weather that be racial, sexual, religious, mental, or ethical (EEOC Employees).

Neither of these two federal departments protects prospective employees who have a history of criminal convictions. Employers do not have to hear any explanation from prospective employees with criminal backgrounds. They can pass judgment as they please on these prospective employees. Even if the prospective employee in question where to be the most qualified applicant for the job. This is why prospective employees convicted of past crimes should be, allowed to stand up and explain themselves to employers. Therefore, that at the very least the prospective employee can explain what happened and how they have changed since then.

This law change will really effect Criminal Justice Department in a good way; because people will get jobs and stay off the streets, which in turn will keep them out of jail (Ban the Box). When people that are fresh out of jail or have been in jail with in the past few years do not find something like a job they tend to fall back into their old habits that got them into jail the first time. With this adjustment to the law, perspective employees with criminal backgrounds will be able to get jobs a lot easier keeping them off the streets and out of jail. This law change will help the criminal justice department because of the lack of funds provided by the United States government as well as the fact that they are excessively understaffed to handle so many criminal cases a year (Department of Justice). In addition, the law change will decrease the prison population since less people will be sent to jail for crimes they committed because they did not have a purpose in life.

The law change will also strongly effect lower income communities such as the inner cities since a large portion of the prospective employees with this problem come from these areas.  With these people being able to get job will improve living conditions in these areas because of the increase in income (Ban the Box). In addition, these people will become examples for the younger generations (Ban the Box). People who went from being convicted criminals on the streets to being hard working people that have a steady job. That way they follow in there new path that does not involve them being sent to jail. Instead, they will want to get jobs so that they can make money to help themselves and make their futures better.

Changing this law will also help the federal, state, and local governments by gaining as well as saving them money. The government will get more money because now the people that did not have jobs will be able to get them. In doing this more of these people will be able to pay taxes to the government. With so many previous criminal and past drug, offenders gaining jobs it will get a lot of them off government operated support systems that drain the government of billions of dollars every year as well. Instead transforming those people into taxpayers that pay the government doesn’t have to worry about taking care of anymore.

People do not realize how many prospective employees are effected by Background checks when applying for a job. Nine percent of background checks preformed will have a serious flag raised concerning some type of criminal conviction (Background Check Statistics).  With another forty-six percent reveling some type of discrepancy between the information given and the information revealed (Background Check Statistics). This alone shows how many job applicants, are effected by background checks in the United States. With this, many effected applicants there has to be something wrong with the application process or the law that is in place on what employers can look at and when they can access it during the applications process.

This law change will not prevent employers from asking questions to their perspective employees about their past criminal history. Because it is a very serious topic, when it comes to applying form a job employers most know thing about their employees so they can make the correct executive decision. The law change will just move it later into the employment process giving perspective employees more of a chance to explain themselves when applying for a job (Ban the Box). This change in the law will not take away the hiring decision away from the employer in the end it is still there decision, because it is there company to do with as they please (Ban the Box). This law change will also not override other laws that are set in place to prevent people with relevant convictions from working in certain jobs (Ban the Box). For example, a prospective employee that has been charged with child abuse and child pornography in their past will not be working in a daycare with children.

I want to level the playing field in the job application process. By helping people that have made mistakes in their past and want to correct those mistakes by actually contributing to society. To do this the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) will need to be changed so that it states that prospective employees with criminal backgrounds do not have to tell their future employer that they have past criminal history until the end of the application process. Thereby making it easier for prospective employees with criminal backgrounds have equal opportunities as prospective employees without criminal history, and providing equal opportunity for everyone that wants to apply for a job.

Work Cited

1. “Background Checks What Employers Need to Know.”Background Checks: What Employers Need to Know. U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, n.d. Web. 27 Feb. 2017.
2. “Background Checks: What Job Applicants and Employees Should Know.”Background Checks: What Job Applicants and Employees Should Know. U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, n.d. Web. 27 Feb. 2017.
3. “Background Check Statistics.”com. N.p., 2016. Web. 27 Feb. 2017
4. “Mosesmadison.”Mosesmadison.org. Mosesmadison Http://mosesmadison.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/header-logo-1.png, 29 Apr. 2014. Web. 27 Feb. 2017.
5. “Department of Justice Prioritizes Improving Legal Representation for Indigent Defendants.”The United States Department of Justice. N.p., 09 Feb. 2012. Web. 27 Feb. 2017.

Welcome to your brand new blog at Virginia Military Institute ePortfolio.

To get started, simply log in, edit or delete this post and check out all the other options available to you.

For assistance, visit our comprehensive support site, check out our Edublogs User Guide guide or stop by The Edublogs Forums to chat with other edubloggers.

You can also subscribe to our brilliant free publication, The Edublogger, which is jammed with helpful tips, ideas and more.