“We only have to look at the recent Stanford rape situation to see that it’s quite possible someone with a serious conviction could end up evidently unrepentant just a year later on a college campus if not for colleges screening.”
Nope. He’s a sex offender. In the wildly unlikely event that a residential college would choose to admit him, he’d be subject to all the restrictions about living a certain distance from schools, parks, etc. AND the school would have to make all his personal information and history publicly available. So he probably couldn’t be on campus, and definitely couldn’t turn up unexpectedly in a dorm.
Now, an armed robber, that’s hypothetically possible if he got a 6-month sentence. But not a rapist.
I support this initiative. I think it will do my daughter a world of good to attend school with convicted sexual offenders, provided they have just served their time before they come to college. After all everybody deserves a second chance. I think she will also grow from interacting with certain criminals.
Besides I don’t want to be called a racist or an intolerant bigot for saying that I am frightened of such folks and concerned about my daughters safety. Its time I learned to be more mature and put the convicted criminal’s interests before my shallow and petty concerns for my daughter’s safety.
Some of these responses strike me as hyperbolic. No one is saying colleges can’t take criminal records into account, but there are different types of crimes. Even the most mild may not be indicative of fantastic judgment, but depending on circumstances, not all of them suggest any danger to potential roommates, let alone classmates.
I am fairly sure I am technically guilty of a felony because I have carried pepper spray into certain jurisdictions that require (or at the time required) a permit for doing so (NY and MA, I believe – I think MA’s laws have since changed). I don’t think that makes me a terribly suspicious character, but in the wrong circumstances, it could land me with a criminal record.
One of my close friends is going through the process of applying for government security clearance. According to her, a criminal conviction is a problem, but is NOT an automatic barrier to employment. The government takes into account things like nature and seriousness of crime, date of offense, and evidence of rehabilitation. And that’s just convictions; my friend had to fess up to past drug use as part of the process, which is considered a totally normal and unproblematic thing to be disclosing, as long as the drug use is not recent.
I just don’t see what is wrong for taking circumstances into account.
@apprenticeprof - There is a difference between being “technically guilty of a felony” and being CONVICTED of a felony. And with respect to getting a security clearance, its likely they will differentiate a misdemeanor from a felony. There are many misdemeanors that are probably of little consequence. But put the worst together-- someone convicted of a felony, and sorry- wouldn’t want them as my kids’ college roommie
Not sure what the line of questioning is all about. A convicted felon on campus? In classes? Um, OK, except see Hanna’s response. As far as I know, DIL isn’t a convicted felon and other s’s longtime girlfriend probably also doesn’t have a record, so we’re probably fine. But they are also not 18 and newly living away from home. They are grown and on their own. Are any off your family members convicted felons? What was the crime?
I posted many times about my first semester roommate. She stole my scarves, jewelry, typewriter. When she stole checks, finally the police were called in. She left after that semester. She was pregnant then, but I don’t know if she was convicted of her thefts. Let me tell you, it was an awful 5 months.
Had she had a criminal record before starting college, I would have NEVER had wanted her for a roommate. I had so little power then. The RA did nothing, as did my folks.
I’m not talking hypothetical in-laws. I’m talking real life living with someone who invades your privacy and takes your things without any remorse. No one wants such a roommate
Again, no one is saying colleges HAVE to admit students with criminal records, or even that they SHOULD admit most students in that position. In most cases, someone convicted of any kind of serious crime won’t and shouldn’t be accepted. But having a blanket opposition to any person who has ever been convicted of a crime, regardless of context, time since the incident, the life they’ve lived since, etc isn’t rational.
There are 18 year olds with DUIs, with theft felonies (in some states it is only $300, in others $1000; should it matter?) Texting while driving could be a felony now if property damage is involved, or worse, if someone is injured or killed. Being with another kid when he commits a felony could get you arrested too.
Back in my day, many of my friends from wealthy families (you know, the good kids) had felonies for DUI, one for stealing ski poles when someone took his, for giving liquor to minors (an 18 year old buying a case of beer). I’d rather my daughters be roommates with them than with someone who isn’t vaccinated, who bullies others, who smoke.
A friend of my daughter’s is currently awaiting a hearing to see if felony charges will be filed. He got home after his first semester of college, got very drunk, went into the wrong house when looking for a party and the homeowner shot at him. Breaking and entering while drunk is still a felony. Would you want him as a roommate for your child even if the felony isn’t prosecuted? He drinks all the time, he has a lot of money to do whatever he wants, he’ll go back to drinking as soon as he’s released from any probation (he’s currently 19). This guy doesn’t have a good history, but I’m sure a lot of it was covered up as he had no problem getting into an OOS college.
Have you all read the article? " “Jarrett highlighted the case of the University of California, the largest education system in the country, and now run by former Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano, which abolished the criminal-justice inquiry from its admissions process. “She was a great validator when she said that they have always had people who were previously incarcerated in the UC system and the safety and security of the campuses, which is her top priority, have not been detrimentally impacted by this practice.” Cognizant of the potential pushback, Jarrett underlined that the idea is “to give people a second chance where it’s warranted.””
OK so UC doesn’t ask, and it’s suggested that the crime rates haven’t gone up so asking doesn’t matter. But what can we conclude from that since apparently they were admitting such students before they stopped asking anyhow. I also suspect that the numbers of previously convicted individuals are small enough in the huge UC campus population that you wouldn’t see any change in overall crime. You’d have to look at whether those individuals were involved in campus crime.
“As part of its “Beyond the Box” effort to raise awareness and inspire action on the issue, King’s team put together a list of “Ways to Take Action” for those interested in taking the pledge, including narrowing or eliminating questions about an applicant’s criminal background,” Eliminating the question. How is a college supposed to determine whether an applicant is likely to be a risk if it’s too un-PC to ask?
Had she been caught earlier and pulled into the juvenile criminal justice system, she would likely have been derailed from the path to attending a residential college long before any college admissions process could possibly admit or reject her.
I think that it depends on the type of criminal. It’s a tough issue - we don’t want criminals returning to crime, which is what happens without the desire and ability to mend their ways. We can offer the ability (such as college), but the desire to be lawful had to be there too. That part is hard to determine.
So perhaps admitted students should be warned that they may be dorming with felons? Will colleges post statistics on the percentage of dorming students with convictions so that parents have another metric in the decision process?
“The probability that your student will be living with a justice-involved individual at some time in his/her 4 year stay is X%.”
The same relevance as your questions. Do you want them in your family? In your home? Do you have a reason to be bringing up felons on campus? In classes? As spouses?
The subject of the thread is allowing justice-involved individuals into more colleges. If they are in college they are in classes (probably even those I teach), on campus, meeting other students. Even if they are not, they are finding mates, being part of families, being in-laws, getting jobs, working with everyone else, living in neighborhoods, being citizens, having kids. Life goes on. People seem to be stuck on the question of someone being their kid’s roommate. That’s hardly where the question stops is it? Right out of the gate? It’s like there is a complete blinder to reality.
Your posts #76 and 84 immediately followed conversations about rooming with a CONVICTED FELON, which is a specific subset of “justice-involved” students. So asking those questions at those times sounds like a bit of a personal agenda.