Three DI opinion writers discuss criminal-background checks in hiring practice of U.S. companies.

Target’s hiring process used to automatically reject applicants with criminal backgrounds. The lawsuit against it said the former company policy discriminated against black and Latino people, who are arrested and incarcerated at disproportionate rates. While these columnists recognize the legal system’s racial disparity, they have different ideas about how companies should handle it.

Target lawsuit was right

The Target lawsuit was completely justified. The reason for that is the legal system is heavily flawed. The current legal system targets minorities, which means they are more likely to have a criminal record, and that is why Target ended up getting sued in the first place.

According to the NAACP, “Blacks are incarcerated at more than five times the rate of whites. If blacks and Hispanics were incarcerated at the same rates as whites, prison populations would decline by almost 40 percent.”

The NAACP also reports, “A criminal record can reduce the likelihood of a callback or job offer by nearly 50 percent. The negative impact of a criminal record is twice as large for African-American applicants.”

This problem is not just with Target. My mother recently faced the same problem when she was rejected a job as a bus driver because of a charge from almost a decade ago. Even sillier, the crime was a misdemeanor assault charge that she got while defending us from a man who broke our door down.

RELATED: Point/Counterpoint: Should we reclaim slurs?

Target’s new method being implemented in its applications, in which it delays background checks until the final stages of the hiring process, works much better.

This way, employers and managers will have a chance to interview a potential employee and then research what exactly a criminal record entails. Some people may have a criminal record but it could be old, or the crime could be completely unrelated to the job.

Now I am not saying Target, or any company for that matter, should completely ignore criminal-background checks. If you run people’s records and find that they have numerous recent charges of robbery and burglary, it makes perfect sense not to give them jobs as cashiers.

But not all of the crimes are violent or even related to the job at hand. Some of these charges are drug-related. According to the NAACP, “Blacks and whites use drugs at similar rates, but the imprisonment rate of blacks for drug charges is almost six times that of whites.”

Ultimately, Target and other businesses should re-evaluate how they do criminal-background checks. Until the systemic oppression that the legal system puts on minorities is fixed, criminal-background checks will also be biased and will prevent minorities from getting hired.

-Wylliam Smith

Target not responsible for legal-system flaws

That Latinos, African Americans, and other minorities are more likely to have records has nothing to do with Target or any other business, for that matter. The problem is in our flawed legal system that is far more likely to convict minorities and give them harsher sentences than their white counterparts.

According to the NAACP, “Though African Americans and Hispanics make up approximately 32 percent of the U.S. population, they composed 56 percent of all incarcerated people in 2015.” For example, minorities with minor possession charges are given harsher sentences than their white counterparts. Minorities don’t have the same access to representation and quality of representation, leaving them exposed to unfair harsh judgment. Clearly, the differences in treatment of races contribute to the convictions that appear during background checks.

RELATED: UI student alleges racism at PetCo

These issues in the legal system have nothing to do with companies. Moreover, Target does hire qualified applicants with criminal backgrounds. There isn’t anything wrong with having opportunities for people with records — in fact, I believe it’s necessary. However, there should be a separate process so the applicants can get the attention their cases deserve. They wouldn’t be compared with applicants without a record, and that would make sure people who are qualified would be hired.

Business and places of work should know who they employ. When it comes to customer service, as a company, you open yourself to liability and should know the full story of your employees beforehand so you know how to deal with situations that arise from it, if any. Background checks are just one portion of the hiring process. There are many other factors that are considered. To say Target has no right to do them is a reach. It wasn’t actively denying jobs to minorities and discriminating against them. This situation is the unfortunate result of unresolved issues in the legal system.

-Michelle Kumar

Background checks are necessary for safety

Criminal-background checks are necessary for every job, despite minorities, on average, having overinflated criminal histories compared with their white counterparts.

Background checks serve the sole purpose of unearthing an individual’s criminal history in regard to maintaining a safe and secure working environment for not only employees and team members but for customers as well. Contending that background checks can potentially be harmful to potential applicants has no basis in the sense that most background checks are conducted during the final stages of the interviewing process. Potential employees are predominantly considered for employment based on their qualifications, interview, and availability for the position in question.

In regard to Target specifically, the company conducts criminal-background checks in order to fulfill their duty to their current employees and customers in order to ensure a safe and secure working and shopping environment for all.

RELATED: Examining racism in health care

While there is a disproportionate number of minorities being convicted in the U.S. for crimes on both ends of the spectrum, claiming that a company is using criminal-background checks unethically is unreasonable. It is no secret that African Americans and Latinos are convicted at much higher rates than their white counterparts; however, completely disregarding an individual’s past criminal offenses — no matter how old the offense is — in order to give applicants a fair chance is problematic. All criminal history should be considered because it makes up people’s character and provides a foundation for understanding who they are as a person.

Systemic racism is a problem in our legal system, but that does not constitute fault on behalf of corporate America. At the end of the day, companies are responsible for ensuring the safety of both their employees and customers as well. Blatantly disregarding the criminal history of applicants can potentially pave the way for dangerous work environments to manifest.

-Constance Judd