I wonder if those convicted of rape and sexual assault will be welcome on campus?
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/06/fair-chance-education-pledge/486518/
The article states that “35 percent of the institutions of higher-education that responded said they had denied applicants based on their criminal history.” So 65% are admitting them. That doesn’t seem like an insurmountable roadblock to getting an education. I would not be comfortable if my child were placed with a roommate with a criminal record. No one has to attend a 4 year residential program to get an education. Let them attend commuter colleges.
@Hanna, would be good to have your participation on this thread.
There are criminal records, and then there are criminal records. Shopifting or breaking into a neighbor’s house on a dare are a far cry from rape and murder charges. Keep in mind also that files are looked at holistically. The context of the crime, cause, remorse expressed, likelihood of recidivism and so on are all factors.
Sorry, but I’m not sure I’d want my kid rooming with someone convicted of any kind of theft.
I’m guessing that a lot of crimes are drug-related…so if you are an adcom, how much risk are you willing to accept in the name of diversity?
So now there is a new PC euphemism – justice-involved individuals. What? Was ‘criminal’ or ‘felon’ too harsh?
@bluebayou in the current inclusionary mania I am guessing that adcoms are willing to accept a lot of risk to avoid being called racist.
Meh, life goes on. If someone is willing to try to get an education, we should do the best we can not to stand in the way.
“So 65% are admitting them.”
They didn’t say that. Schools in that group may not have gotten completed applications from students with records.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/04/ban-the-box-comes-to-campus/480195/
A longer, more thorough article about this issue.
It’s well known that recidivism rates are high. School’s worry about lawsuits if they admit a former convict and another student is assaulted, raped, robbed, etc. It’s a valid concern.
Drug-related crimes can encompass many non-violent offenders…such as drug addicts who were arrested for drug possession for personal use. There’s also the factor that despite the fact the proportion of White drug addicts* is similar to those of minority populations, the latter tend to be arrested and sentenced much more harshly than the former for the same level of offenses…assuming the LEOs even bother to arrest them in the first place.
One good example of this with which I have some firsthand observational experience…the fact drug use(weed and psychedelics) was quite open at my LAC campus…including outdoors in an era when weed possession for personal use was a criminal offense and in some jurisdiction…a felony.
However, despite the fact this type of drug use was well known…especially if one stepped on campus/into the dorms, no arrests/police/FBI/ATF raids were done on campus despite the fact they could have had a major drug bust for bragging rights if they did.
Could it have anything to do with the fact the majority of the campus happened to be White from upper/upper-middle class backgrounds?? Nahh…couldn’t be…
- Underscored by recent addiction epidemics to crystal meth and heroin in many areas with a White majority population.
This. There are lot of poor kids with criminal records who wouldn’t have them in their parents could have afforded and were willing to hire a good defense attorney.
Some criminal records are for MIP–minor in possession. There are many more kids who have bought and drunk booze in high school who don’t have records. I don’t see any greater danger from the roommate who had a few beers and got caught and those who had them too but didn’t get caught. Some kids use phony IDs to buy booze and get nailed for that too.
In NYC, some kids get convicted for selling “loosies,” individual cigarettes, to kids under 18 who can’t legally buy them. It seems like easy money to poor kids–buy a pack and sell them individually at a 500% profit. I understand why this crime is prosecuted----the aim is to stop those under 18 from smoking. Still…I wouldn’t be upset if a college admitted someone convicted of this.
Is this really any different than it is now? There may be a few schools that say they will not consider any student with a criminal record, but many more that will consider admission on a case by case basis. That’s what this pledge is, to consider the application, not to blindly admit Charles Manson and his pals.
I don’t think any school will agree to ignore all criminal records, just to consider those with a record.
Yup. And some of those convictions for ‘personal use’ were negotiated down from something more serious. And yes, the wealthy may tend to get off more (affluenza defense). But that doesn’t mean that the non-wealthy are not guilty.
Of course. But how are Adcoms knowledgeable enough to know? (Some app readers are only a year or two out of college themselves.) And that also begs the question of recidivism, particularly if a college would prefer less drugs to more drugs on campus…
Much different than drug possession, IMO. (btw: I think the prosecution is more about taxes…)
Personally, I think what law schools require makes perfect sense. If charged, explain it. Admissions will likely understand getting busted for a beer/joint when 16, but might want to draw the line at a second conviction for crystal meth.
“Is this really any different than it is now?”
The theory is that many students start applying and give up when they are asked about their records. The article has some data supporting that idea. I don’t know if they’re considering any middle ground, like asking with reassuring language that students who put their history in context can often be admitted.
@Hanna, perhaps some “Schools in that group may not have gotten completed applications from students with records.” True, we don’t know that. But if we are talking about applications over some years, I have a hard time believing that most of those colleges have never ever had even a single applicant with a criminal record. This is an awful lot of applications we’re talking about.
“The report concluded that over 62 percent of applicants with prior convictions who began the SUNY application process never completed it, compared to 21 percent of those with none.” It’s hard to conclude much from this. What do the numbers look like if we compare them with students of the same SES? And for those who are already out of hs, including that status as well since they may be weighing whether to leave or turn down a job? I would guess that they are on average significantly lower SES and that such students are less likely to complete the application for financial reasons. Would need to know this to know how much attrition is due to being put off by the question.
Actions have consequences. I can’t see how colleges should look the other way when someone with a felony conviction record applies. Just as they don’t look the other way when you skipped your classes and failed classes.
I hardly see those things as being analogous.
Can they do correspondence courses in the “big house”?