<how many="" of="" your="" relatives="" are="" felons?="">
My cousin (by marriage) is. Was in prison for one year (battery while intoxicated). Came from prison as an alcoholic. In-and-out of rehab ever since. He is the greatest guy when he is sober. When drunk - he is totally unpredictable.
<sorry, but="" (re:="" post="" #108–="" you="" added="" more="" after="" that)="" is="" simply="" ridiculous,="" @californiaa.="" there="" are="" admission="" policies="" the="" adcomms="" follow.=""></sorry,>
Exactly! Once you would modify policy and allow felons on campus, you will end up with affirmative action in favor of justice involved.
^How does that follow?
I’m getting confused as to who’s letting in all these convicted felons in this nightmare scenario. Is it educated and otherwise rational young women who have an insatiable itch for bad boys? Or is it cowardly and obsequious administrators who are doing the bidding of their affirmative action overlords?
I’m undecided about this. On one hand, I get that there are legitimate safety concerns regarding convicted people and that past behavior is generally the best predictor of future behavior. On the other hand, the current social system we have which assigns a punishment for a crime (fines, community service, jail time) but then continues to greatly restrict the rights of people who have completed that punishment seems to fly in the face of sentencing. If we really, as a society, see those who are convicted of any crime or any felony as being unfit to ever participate in society again (go to school, get a job, get married, buy a house, vote, etc), then we would just give everyone life sentences for every crime. There’s little point in assigning sentences for crimes if you just continue to severely punish and restrict the person when those sentences have been completed. There’s a social discount here. Not to mention that certain groups (e.g., Blacks, Hispanics) are as a whole more severely punished for the same behavior as other groups, starting from preschool discipline on up.
I have had a handful of felons in my practice. All of them had substance abuse problems and the felonies were ancillary to those addictions (DUI; breaking and entering while drunk; selling drugs to support a habit). In these cases, whether the students were going to stay on the straight and narrow was 100% a question of whether they stayed in recovery. They all had at least a year sober by the time they were accepted to college.
I do not know how I feel about this initiative. It is powerfully uncomfortable for me. I thought I truly believed that anyone who had made a mistake and served their punishment absolutely had the right to an environment where it’s possible to get on with life and contribute.
Do I want my child in an encapsulated, dorm situation with a felon? No. Absolutely, unequivocally, no.
I will listen. And hopefully learn.
@Hanna , universities are increasingly offering special services and programs for students in recovery from substance abuse.
Did any of them live in a dorm with traditional frosh students when they entered (or returned to) college after their felony convictions?
Is it logically consistent to require that your child’s RA undergo a criminal background check, but not that their roommate disclose any conviction history? I’m more concerned about the person actually living in their room.
We see on this site so many students agonizing over whether it will “look bad” if they drop out of band or track after 3 years, will it “look bad” if they have a lot of interests and like to try a lot of things in high school rather than being student with a focused “passion” and a “story”, etc. etc. But if their EC is breaking and entering, colleges shouldn’t know or care?
I suppose that if a parent is particularly concerned about their college freshman rooming with a felon, they could pay for a background check on that individual. It wouldn’t necessarily turn up anything if the student was a minor when the offense occurred, though.
A person has to sign to agree to a background check, I believe.
Anyone can hire a PI to do a background check.
“Exactly! Once you would modify policy and allow felons on campus, you will end up with affirmative action in favor of justice involved.”
No, that logic doesn’t apply at all, californiaa. No one is talking about “affirmative action” to FAVOR these folks.
When we have interviewed potential employees and wanted to do a background check, the company we used gave us the form for the potential employee to fill out (name, birthday, SSN, etc) and sign, giving permission to do the background check. It may also be because, since they had potential access to money and checks, we did a credit check too. If I felt I needed to hire a PI to do a background check on one of my kids’ roommates, I’d probably be looking into their getting a single room instead!
I read the Atlantic article that was posted. There is a big difference between the Ban the Box legislation for jobs and applying it to the college setting. The ban the box statutes prevent prospective employers from advertising that those with criminal convictions should not apply or from asking on the initial application.The idea is to give people with criminal histories the chance to apply and get to an interview. However, those laws allow prospective employers to ask about criminal history at the interview stage and to require background checks. So employers can evaluate criminal history, but not in a way that prevents an initial application. The college process is different. The application is the only opportunity to find out about a prospective student’s criminal background. I do think colleges have a higher duty of scrutiny given the ages of the young adults and the fact that students are living together. I think the questions are relevant and should remain on the common app and other college applications. Safety must come first.
The faculty of universities must undergo criminal background checks. This is to protect students, some of whom are still minors, and to protect the university from civil liability. It makes no sense to have a lower standard for the students who are in closer contact with other students than the professors and/or staff.
I’d be surprised to find that I ever underwent a background check. Maybe adjuncts don’t count?
<“Exactly! Once you would modify policy and allow felons on campus, you will end up with affirmative action in favor of justice involved.”
No, that logic doesn’t apply at all, californiaa. No one is talking about “affirmative action” to FAVOR these folks. >
@Pizzagirl,
Unfortunately, policies are never neutral. They are always either against something or in favor of something. Once you open the gates, you will never be able to close them.
First, colleges create “acceptance”. Next, “support and special services”. Next, anyone, who does not like to be roomed with a felon, will be called a bigot. Next, felonies will be on the list of hooks and special circumstances.
@sylvan8798 <i’d be="" surprised="" to="" find="" that="" i="" ever="" underwent="" a="" background="" check.="" maybe="" adjuncts="" don’t="" count?=""></i’d>
Maybe you haven’t noticed? Lots of time, an employee gives permission to run a background check as part of the employment agreement. Sometimes, as part of job a application. Fine text, some people miss it.
University of California asks all employees to go through background check.