Friday
November 21, 2008
Advertisement
News, Views and Careers for All of Higher Education
March 6, 2007
Innocent (Applicant) Until Proven Guilty
This academic year marked the first one in which the Common Application, soon to be used by more than 300 colleges, included a question about discipline of students. The question was added after considerable discussion and reflected a growing national debate over crime on campus and the appropriate responsibilities for colleges to protect students — sometimes from other students.
Related stories
- Looking to the Past to Ban Legacy Admissions, Nov. 20
- The Bubble That Didn’t Burst, Nov. 18
- The Illusion of Race-Blind Admissions, Nov. 18
- Balancing Safety and Student Privacy, June 21, 2006
- Errors of Admission?, May 18, 2006
As the board of the Common Application reviewed the experience, it tentatively decided this year that it would get even more specific, and ask applicants and their counselors not only about convictions (in either the legal system or the equivalent in school processes), but about pending actions. The theory, which was suggested by a counselor at a member institution, was that a college would want to know that a student was on trial for a crime, especially a violent one.
But when the Common Application leaders shared the idea with their members — via the electronic discussion list of the National Association for College Admission Counseling — the reaction was negative. And so the Common Application is keeping the question focused on convictions, not on any pending actions.
Colleges are free to consider or ignore information submitted on the Common Application, but its growing popularity, which extends to some of the most competitive colleges around, has made its decisions influential.
Many admissions counselors — both at the high school and college level — had strong reactions against the idea of requiring students or counselors to report on incidents when there wasn’t yet a conviction and might never be one. Some worried about due process and others feared that relatively minor infractions might get blown out of proportion.
Rob Killion, executive director of the Common Application, said that in the end, the idea of “innocent until proven guilty” was important to admissions officers, and that his board was guided by that reaction. He noted, however, that counselors receive requests for information about students several times in the process, to confirm completion of high school courses, for example. The disciplinary question will continue to appear on those forms, so an applicant who is on trial for something at the point that a counselor first fills out the form (and says nothing at that time, since there has been no final resolution), but who is subsequently convicted, would be reported later in the process.
The questions asked of applicants and their counselors are parallel: One question asks applicants whether they have (and counselors whether they know if the applicant has) “ever been found responsible for a disciplinary violation at an educational institution you have attended from 9th grade forward (or the international equivalent), whether related to academic misconduct or behavioral misconduct, that resulted in your probation, suspension, removal, dismissal or expulsion from the institution?” A second question asks about convictions of misdemeanors, felonies or other crimes. The proposed changes that were abandoned would have added pending charges to both questions. (The questions are phrased for a Yes/No response, but any Yes response leads to a request for an explanation.)
The member institutions of the College Application get the chance to suggest changes every year, and usually there are several changes in wording. But Killion said that they tend to be relatively minor changes and that the disciplinary questions have attracted unusual interest. Part of the problem, he said, is the range of incidents that could have someone answering Yes to that question. Some might be minor and on their way to resolution without conviction. On the other hand, he said that the request to add pending cases came from the view that “if someone is in the middle of a murder trial, some schools might want to know it.”
Several universities this year are in fact facing criticism over students they admitted with histories that could have raised questions during the process. The University of North Carolina System was sued last year by the parents of a woman who was murdered in her dormitory at the Wilmington campus in 2004 by a fellow student who then killed himself while being held on charges of kidnapping, sexual assault and murder. The suit charges that the university was negligent for admitting the attacker despite a documented history of violence against women, including incidents at other North Carolina campuses.
The University of Akron announced a review of its policies after being embarrassed by a series of revelations about felons — some in their 40s — living in dorms and sharing rooms with freshmen in their teens. As The Akron Beacon-Journal reported, one freshman was instructed to call his roommate by his jail nickname and another felon was alleged to have committed more crimes while enrolled. And the University of Pennsylvania is reviewing its policies after a series of incidents, including the murder arrest of a professor and the discovery that a child molester was taking graduate classes while on an academic release from prison, which a judge subsequently terminated.
S. Daniel Carter, vice president of Security on Campus, said that he “understands innocent until proven guilty,” but would prefer to see colleges “err on the side of being aware of a pending action.”
Colleges need not automatically reject everyone who answers one of the disciplinary questions Yes, and that would still be the case with a pending court action, he said. “But I think the admissions officials should have the opportunity to evaluate each situation,” he said. “Is this a person who got into a fight once, or someone with a history of abusing people?”
Carter also said that with incidents such as those at Wilmington and Akron, it is important to remember that colleges aren’t just admitting students, but housing students, in close quarters with other students.
A college can easily decide that a pending court action isn’t relevant, or is only something to be watched for a conviction, he said. “But if I were making the decision, I’d want to know if criminal charges were pending against an applicant. My concern is that something doesn’t fall through the cracks and colleges don’t even know to ask about it.”
Want it on paper? Print this page.
Know someone who’d be interested? Forward this story.
Want to stay informed? Sign up for free daily news e-mail.
Advertisement
Comments
Such Questions Are Needed
As a professional in the field of student conduct, I feel that such questions are needed. I have encountered situations where parents and even some courts view higher education as the dumping grounds for problem students. “Send them off to college to grow up,” they say. However,many of these problems start at home and should be dealt with at home. One example was an 18 year old college student fresh out of a residential treatment facility. The first day on campus the student had alcohol violation number one as they were carrying a 24 pack of beer into a “dry” residence hall. Needless to say when a student starts out this way it is pretty much down hill from there.Discussions with parents indicated college was cheaper than continued treatment and they felt we would look after their student. Several charges later, all alcohol related but including an assault, serious vandalism, breaking and entering, and a 0.00 gpa after a semester and an eventual trip to the E.R. for alcohol poisoning and the student was back home where they should have been. Hopefully getting the help they needed.
More and more institutions of higher education are open to suit in regards to alcohol, drug, security, and other issues. How are we to protect our campuses and do what is best for all of our students if their admission is not predicated by some sort of review of their history both educational and criminal.
Let me clarify my position. I am not saying that we deny admission to students with previous criminal and conduct issues. I am, however, stating that there needs to be a review process in place for these students coming to us with past issues. If deemed necessary in a case by case basis putting those students with some serious issues on warning that continued behavior will not be tolerated. E.g. a student with a previous drug violation given clear boundaries in regards to university policy on substance issues and that drug violation being used in the sanctioning process if the admitted student is found in violation after being admitted to the institution.
I am not an attorney and this is just personal opinion but I do warn institutions that if you ask the question in regards to past criminal and educational history and do nothing with that information you may be doing more harm than good. While no direct legal precedent has been set on this issue it is only a matter of time. To have knowledge of and to not do anything is far worse than to not have that knowledge. Williams v. Univ. of Georgia could rather easily be applied in this area. In this case school officials knew of previous criminal issues with a student and did little or nothing to inform or protect the community. The pattern of behavior was repeated on campus this time with one of their own students as a victim. Thus the institution was embroiled in a lawsuit that has been on going for a number of years with no end in sight.
As to the question of due process, I feel strongly that if you have a review process in place then the question of due process is in place. I would ask those who stand solidly on this point, do you actually want a student to come to your institution with serious pending criminal or educational cases? A review by the institution on a case by case basis would answer the question of due process. For those with pending criminal or educational cases one suggestion is that perhaps you should put the student on warning that the final outcomes of those cases should be reported to the institution for review and that they could result in conduct adjudication or a revocation of admission, however, the institution deems appropriate. I make that last clarifying point because it depends on the institutional definition of when a student becomes a student. If a student is defined as one that has been admitted but may not be attending classes yet perhaps conduct adjudication would be appropriate. However, if the admitted student is not considered a student until registration or further yet day 1 of classes then perhaps revocation of admission is more appropriate.
Finally, as to the point that such questions may deter applicants, I say so what. You do the crime you must pay the price. If they have a criminal history they will probably have to pay this price the rest of their life by answering such questions. This is one of the penalties of such behavior. So what! Why should higher education be any different than anyone else? However, most of us, unlike many employers do not systematically deny the applicant because of a criminal history. Rather we review that potential student’s suitability to our community more closely than other students. Part of the price of their decision to demonstrate such behavior, sorry.
David, at 9:35 am EST on March 6, 2007
When discussing this topic it is important to remember that there is a large population of young people in this country who are disappearing from institutions of higher learning—Black males. These young men are also, unfortunately, a group which has a relatively large percentage of individuals who are arrested, at times falsely. This policy will have a serious impact on this group
CA, at 9:42 am EST on March 6, 2007
Disciplinary questions
I think the article missed the point of the Common Application question. In fact, a question about disciplinary actions will continue on the forms, though the proposed language on pending actions and a very lengthy, cumbersome legal release will not.
Students will still be required to authorize their schools to release all requested records, including disciplinary actions. Some colleges may be fine with the question remaining unanswered by schools and students and some, such as Pomona College where I work, will consider applications without a response from both the student and the counselor to be incomplete.
At Pomona we seek this information because at a residential college we have a responsibility both to our candidates and to our enrolling students and the community at large. Maybe communicating that more clearly will help. Parents and students should be glad we are asking for this information rather than fighting it.
To students and counselors, let me be clear that we do hope we will be trusted to act rationally and consider context of issues raised, the difference between “felony” and “misdemeanor” and the good sense to understand the difference between growing pains and real problems.
Full disclosure from student and schools assures us we have a full picture. If schools start parsing language about what should or should not be reported, we will have an issue of trust to navigate and, unfortunately, I have a few disturbing tales to tell about those kinds of experiences, as clearly many of my counterparts could report, too.
Bruce Poch, Vice President and Dean of Admissions at Pomona College, at 12:21 pm EST on March 6, 2007
Disciplinary question
The range of infractions is enormous and what is considered a major offense in some schools that lead to a suspension is far different than in other high schools. Receiving a suspension for being tardy is far different from what colleges need to know. The question should refer only to criminal offenses for which a student has been convicted in a court of law. Colleges don’t need to know about minor in-school problems.
Arthur, at 1:07 pm EST on March 6, 2007
Guilty by assinine speech codes?
The disciplinary questions for transfer students, as opposed to incoming students, are even more dangerous.
Basically most high schools are public, so generally there is some legal remedy for students that are spuriously accused. This is much less true for private colleges, many of which have Mickey Mouse speech codes that allow essentially anyone accuse one for anything one says. I have particular experience with Boston University, that makes it a violation to offend anyone based solely on them “feeling offended", and without any need to pass any common sense tests, e.g., asking the violator to cease. The so-called “judicial” process then is a travesty, as the accused has effectively no rights, no access to the accusations or the accusers, and anyway with such speech code it is effectively impossible to ever be found innocent. Probations are given left and right under this regime.
Couple such asinine speech codes and judicial processes with disciplinary questions on transfer application, and we have one more way to blackball applicants.
xzw, at 1:07 pm EST on March 6, 2007
schools really don’t want full disclosure
There is an alternative to this problem. While I rarely agree with CA’s line of thinking, his argument might be better expressed in a constitutional framework: individuals with ambiguous interactions with the legal system have no way of knowing whether their behavior does or does not exclude them from consideration from a college. Many (and I think, too many) black youths have been arrested for mere possession of marijuana. Some have been charged with felonies. However, first offenders are often (depending on the jurisdiction) put into alternative programs were charges remain pending for quite some time. Admissions counselors do not have the expertise or the knowledge to understand the nuances of these programs, and they probably don’t understand why even an innocent person would agree to one of them.
At the moment, Mr. Poch wants “full disclosure” from students and schools, the last thing most schools want is “full disclosure” as to what they are really looking for.
The solution, it would seem, is to 1) be up front and open about what behavior the college is on the lookout for; and 2) explain what charges and/or convictions the school considers to be a) irrefutable evidence of an inability to attend their institution or b) requiring further clarification. Where additional clarification is required the school should demand, up front, copies of all relevant documents.
Without going about this systematically, schools are vesting far too much discretion in the hands of counselors who will simply ask themselves whether they would want to live with this person. This leaves the door open to admitting marijuana possessors but not LSD users, and shop-lifters but not check-forgers.
Larry, at 1:46 pm EST on March 6, 2007
Record often more damaging than the offense
Our staff has been involved in the expungement of juvenile criminal records for over 30 years.
In our experience society is often damaged more by the public disclosure of a young, yet to be developed, and otherwise marginal person’s criminal record than by the harm that person caused by the crime they committed.
We must learn how to invest in young people so they have a chance to become productive members of society. Formal education is an important cog in that endeavor.
Judicial Equality Foundation, Inc.
William Sumner Scott, J.D.
William Sumner Scott, J.D., at 1:50 pm EST on March 6, 2007
Clarity is needed
I understand why colleges and universities need this sort of information to make fully-informed decisions. However, I also feel that there needs to be more clarity in terms of spelling out exactly what students and schools need to report.
For instance, many students and parents have told me that they “don’t need” to report underage convictions that are sealed by the court at age 18. Obviously, a conviction has still occurred, but legally the slate has been wiped clean by the court when the student turns 18. As a counselor, I am often at a loss as to how to counsel students in this situation. I believe that honesty is the best policy, but if the student is not legally required to reveal a sealed conviction for other reasons — say, a job application — should they or should they not reveal the sealed conviction on a college application? Not sure.
Another issue with the Common Application’s current approach is that it asks school guidance counselors to report on student legal issues. I surveyed a number of guidance counselors last year and most said that they did not feel they could — or should — comment on student legal issues, especially in cases where the conviction was not at all school-related. They noted that they do not have all of the facts regarding a student’s legal situation, and feel that it would be inappropriate to comment based on hearsay. I agree.
It would be very helpful if NACAC added a specific standard to its Standards & Practices that spelt out what student and school responsibility in reporting disciplinary actions and prior convictions.
Carolyn Lawrence, independent college planner, at 1:51 pm EST on March 6, 2007
Let’s Have Some Boundaries, Folks
Criminal or school disciplinary records aren’t the business of colleges. I was suspended in both the first and the twelvth grades, and am now a professor. Nobody’s business as far as I’m concerned. And no one ever asked me about it.
Maybe I’d agree with this idea for violent offences only, though.
TBD, at 3:45 pm EST on March 6, 2007
TBD, I think we generally agree. However, I think that crimes of dishonesty (e.g. forgery, embezzlement, credit card fraud) should also count. The key is that schools state, up front, what they don’t want on campus.
Ms. Lawrence, There is a difference between “expungement” and “sealing.” You probably should have your clients contact their lawyer as to the legal impact of whatever the disposition of their case might be.
Larry, at 10:10 pm EST on March 6, 2007
Suspension
What is your opinion about a sophomore student who hacked into his high school’s network but was caught before he could do any harm with teacher’s personal information, grades etc. He was suspended for ten days, the maximum suspension. He admits to hacking since fourth grade. How should an infraction like this, which could have led to identity theft, grade altering etc. be dealt with?
Ann, at 1:21 am EST on March 9, 2007
Ann, What you just described was actually a felony. If it really happened the school should have turned it over to the police, so, at a minimum, the student could defend himself against these charges in a legal process, including having the opportunity to investigate and cross-examine all witnesses to this “crime.” If it can’t be proven, perhaps the school needs to consider whether they were, in fact, bamboozled by whoever made the allegation into smearing the good name of the student.
Unfortunately, many high schools think that just an allegation is as good as proof. It is very easy to make allegations such as yours, and if they are repeated, it is easy to ruin someone’s life. Is this what you want to do?
Strangely, while many high schools are eager to turn over drug issues to the police, they are reluctant to do so when it comes to 1) assaults; and (as you seem to admit) 2) tampering with records.
Larry, at 12:00 pm EST on March 9, 2007
Advertisement
Jobs Related to Innocent (Applicant) Until Proven Guilty
or search for jobs directly.
Adjunct Instructor, IMC Program
Roosevelt University
Job Summary Roosevelt University is seeking applicants for Advertising/Promotions Creative Message ... see job
Veterinary Anatomic Pathology — Residency
University of Minnesota, Twin Cities
The University of Minnesota is a premier employer and a talent magnet attracting leading faculty and staff from around the ... see job
Assistant Professor in Psychology
James Madison University
Join one of the finest regional universities in the nation. James Madison University, home to 18,000 + students, welcomes you ... see job
Department of Management, Assistant/Associate Professor
Bridgewater State College, MA
BSC is one of the largest and most exciting centers for higher education in the commonwealth. Here in our idyllic setting, ... see job
Assistant Professor of Teacher Education
Fort Hays State University
Assistant Professor of Teacher Education see job
Marketing Professor
Wake Forest University
Small in size. Big in resources. Wake Forest, located in Winston-Salem, NC, provides the intimacy and personal attention ... see job
Assistant or Associate Professor of Occupational Therapy
University of Puget Sound
Primary expertise desired in mental health assessment and intervention, including supervising students in off-site mental ... see job
Program Manager
Yale University
General Purpose
Manage and perform a range of administrative, financial, research, educational and outreach ... see job
Automotive Faculty
Broward College
Broward College invites applicants for a full time tenure track teaching position in the Automotive field. Candidates should ... see job
Assistant Professor, Tenure-Track — Chemical Biology and Bioorganic Chemistry
University of California, Irvine
School of Physical Sciences Department of Chemistry University of California, Irvine- FACULTY POSITION IN CHEMICAL BIOLOGY & ... see job
Home
| Sign up | Log in
| About us
| Work for Us
| Press Releases
| Rights and permissions
| Contact us
| Advertise
| Partners
| RSS 
| Podcasts
| Links
| Privacy
| My Account
© Copyright 2008 Inside Higher Ed
problems, alternatives and options
In my view, which has been rejected by many, these questions will discourse many otherwise-qualified and non-dangerous people from applying. A solution that might satisfy both interests would be to admit students pending a satisfactory criminal check. Admission would only be rescinded for certain enumerated criteria. It would not be a mushy “are they not the kind of person we want here?” type of decision.
For better or worse, in this country, there exists a large group of kids that have been caught possessing small amounts of marijuana. However, states have decided that rather then send them to jail (where many of the readers of this board thing they belong) they should offer them alternatives, which often involve allowing the charge to remain pending for an extended period of time. If the kid stays out of trouble, prosecutors fulfill their half of the bargain and move to dismiss the charges.
Larry, at 8:00 am EST on March 6, 2007