I found this article to be very interesting because it points out an issue that needs to be addressed in today’s society. The U.S education department released a report called “Beyond the Box.” In this report, it speaks about how college admissions should not judge a student’s admission on the basis of their criminal or disciplinary records. I agree with this completely. We see mistakes in the criminal justice system today, so if someone was to be wrongfully convicted and that was put on their record, that record could ruin that person’s chances of getting quality education. And in these records are convictions and arrests. So college admission offices can deny admission to student just because of an arrest, even though arrests can happen for the most non-violent/petty crimes, such as possession. And not only are there mistakes in the criminal justice system, there are also biases towards certain races, which can cause wrongful/racially biased arrests and/or convictions. And because these people were arrested/convicted based on their race, they become unable to be admitted into college. A third point I would like to make is that, the whole point of the prison system is that convicted felon’s owe a debt to society. That isolation from society and temporary loss of rights is their punishment. Once these convicted felons are released, their debt to society has been completed. So to subject them to the denial of education, to deny them the integration back into society is something wrong, because if they have paid their debt to society, why are we still punishing them once they have been released? The department of education provides suggestions to colleges that I believe would be helpful, such as, making sure that anyone who checks that box on their application indicating a criminal or disciplinary record has a chance to explain the circumstances, because sometimes it could be a petty crime that led to that record. Or that colleges that wish to ask such questions should consider doing so after an initial decision has been made about admission to avoid a “chilling effect” on applicants whose backgrounds may not be relevant to admissions. This is done so that their acceptance or denial of application can be based on things other than their criminal/disciplinary record.
The link is here https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016/05/09/education-department-report-urges-colleges-reconsider-admissions-questions-criminal
I just read this article and was thinking of blogging about it, too, but you beat me to it! I think your post gave a good summary of the article’s points as well as your own thoughts about this topic.
I would like to add that I think this article offers an interesting insight we did not consider in class. We’ve been discussing whether or not college programs should be offered within prisons, but never considered what happens to people seeking an education afterwards. I remember filling out my own college applications and answering this question without a second thought, yet this question is deterring many people from receiving an education, perhaps not even based on rejection but based on the fear of rejection. I can see the need for a question like this to ensure campus safety, yet there are certainly ways applications could pose this question in a better manner. The article mentions consideration of severity and recency of the crime, as well as changing the word “arrests” for “convictions.” I think these are somewhat simple measures colleges could take in order to increase the number of applications from students with a criminal or disciplinary record.
I for one am an advocate of the “box where you explain what happened” approach and the traditional way in which criminals are treated in respect to job applications. According to current standards, criminals must first be evaluated for their prospective job based on their skills, at which point, criminal record is taken into account. In the world of competitive admissions, this can make a huge difference. Let’s say that you have two candidates with equal qualifications but one has a criminal record. The record is taken into consideration because it is a perceived flaw of character and unless explained, it cannot be taken into context easily. Many people are quick to dismiss criminals as “broken” individuals incapable of rehabilitation. Certainly, this is a bad perspective, but I have read stories about people with disciplinary records getting accepted to competitive programs over those that do not have the qualifications to do so. For things like possession, which is a minor crime, it cannot be fully discounted. For now, it’s still treated as a crime. Maybe one day people will ease up to the point at which it won’t be.
I do agree with what you put in your post. I, too, believe that it would be unfair for the student who has a record of an arrest to be denied into college for that only reason. However, if colleges take ignore that and accept them for our reasons to give everyone a chance, that college will not be able to attract some students. As we talked about in the beginning of the semester, colleges need to market themselves to attract intelligent students who can also pay for their tuition. How likely will it be for a college that isn’t looking into the criminal records to attract such student that other colleges also want? It all comes back to profit for the colleges since it is an institution that can only run with so much money. Even if there is a law to protect students with criminal record, I believe that colleges would reject them anyways, while giving another reason for rejection.