UW may soon use criminal history in admissions decisions
»Play Video
SEATTLE -- Legal trouble can have a huge impact on a person's life, especially if it starts at a young age. Now the University of Washington is grappling with the question of whether a student's criminal past should come into play during the admission process.
University officials have been bouncing around the idea of adding criminal background checks to their application for years. The debate came to a head last year, when the school discovered it had granted admission to level II and level III sex offenders.
Vice provost Eric Godfrey said not all crimes should automatically keep a student out of the university. But if it was a violent crime or a high level sex offense, he said it would be prudent to weed out those bad apples during the application process.
"We have a high obligation to ensure that this campus is safe," he said.
It's a growing debate among top tier universities around the country, and next month the University of Washington will decide if it, too, will add a criminal background question to its application.
Some current students think it's a great idea, while others argue that because the university is state funded, the policy could become a slippery slope.
"I don't think that has anything to do with their academic standing," said Julio Ahumada, who heads up a school organization for Chicano students.
Ahumada fears background questions could unfairly keep talented students from getting an education.
"People change and that's just the way it is," he said.
Godfrey said the questions would identify only people convicted of the most violent crimes. Applicants who have committed those types of crimes would then be evaluated by a panel of mental and community health experts and police.
The ACLU will be looking closely at any decision about who gets in and who doesn't based on criminal history. In a statement, the organization said a person's criminal past "does not mean that he or she should be denied the opportunity of a college education. Nor does a record alone mean that a person will be a safety problem on campus."
Godfrey agrees it's tricky finding a balance. The school wants to keep the campus safe, but they don't want to deny someone the chance to get an education.
If the school does decide to implement the policy, those questions would appear on next year's applications
University officials have been bouncing around the idea of adding criminal background checks to their application for years. The debate came to a head last year, when the school discovered it had granted admission to level II and level III sex offenders.
Vice provost Eric Godfrey said not all crimes should automatically keep a student out of the university. But if it was a violent crime or a high level sex offense, he said it would be prudent to weed out those bad apples during the application process.
"We have a high obligation to ensure that this campus is safe," he said.
It's a growing debate among top tier universities around the country, and next month the University of Washington will decide if it, too, will add a criminal background question to its application.
Some current students think it's a great idea, while others argue that because the university is state funded, the policy could become a slippery slope.
"I don't think that has anything to do with their academic standing," said Julio Ahumada, who heads up a school organization for Chicano students.
Ahumada fears background questions could unfairly keep talented students from getting an education.
"People change and that's just the way it is," he said.
Godfrey said the questions would identify only people convicted of the most violent crimes. Applicants who have committed those types of crimes would then be evaluated by a panel of mental and community health experts and police.
The ACLU will be looking closely at any decision about who gets in and who doesn't based on criminal history. In a statement, the organization said a person's criminal past "does not mean that he or she should be denied the opportunity of a college education. Nor does a record alone mean that a person will be a safety problem on campus."
Godfrey agrees it's tricky finding a balance. The school wants to keep the campus safe, but they don't want to deny someone the chance to get an education.
If the school does decide to implement the policy, those questions would appear on next year's applications
Penn State covered up crimes committed by the powerful "white" elite for decades. These background checks will impact the very populations that need the support; black and Latino who are the future majority of this country. When will the status quo (white men) accept the fact that the US is no longer their pretty playground?Â
If domestic students need to be vetted, international students must be vetted as well. The criminal history check is a sinister plot to exclude black and Latino youth from higher ed. The minority populations are impacted disproportionally by the justice system and that is known to be the case across the country. I WILL NOT LET MY UNIVERSITY USE MY TAX DOLLARS to keep youth who deserve education out. This is not 1950 USA!
The more we can punish felons outside of 'jail' time is good. We keep saying lets get tougher on criminals so not only will their crimes involve jail time but also heavily impact any future they have outside of jail - maybe make these scum bags think before they do.
What does it matter when half the students admitted are chosen by a default international or minority status? If academic records are disregarded for these shoe-ins, why wouldn't every other record be?
@jowsuf  Interesting point about foreign students. How will their criminal history be vetted? Will any segment of applicants have a disportionate history of violent crimes? I agree with another poster that this is a slippery slope. But UW would not be denying them an education - only a higher education on it's campuses.  And higher education is a privlege.
If parents really want to (fruitlessly)Â shield their little girls from the realities of life for as long as possible, they could always do what they did in the old days - send their daughters to an all women's university.
This might make sense as long as the University isn't covering for date rape by atheletes or students from rich families who've already been admitted.
@PollywannacrackerÂ
Agree!Â
Why not? They used  the lack of a foreign language credit to keep me out of an engineering degree, even though I had a JC average of 3.95. Turns out the union job I got instead had better pay and benefits right away instead of having to crawl up the ladder with my nose in some CEO's butt.
They will use any device to keep worthy candidates out while giving a red carpet welcome to foreigners,
@Glassman Less drama and more security on your Union job as well. Yep, I'm a white-collar worker, it works for me. But I see plenty of people driving buses, recycle trucks etc who provide well for their families without the stress of the office.
Would be interested to see some numbers.  Are there a significant number of the crimes committed on campus by students committed by students with a previous record of more violent crimes?  If so could a screening process significantly increase the safety of students without arbitrarily denying educational opportunities to persons who had committed lesser offenses. Â
@My_Thoughts From what I've seen and read, the greatest threat to UW students is excessive intoxication and falling from great heights.
@UtterReality I can see it now.  A requirement that no student housing
be more than one story tall. Â ;-)
I cannot agree with this. I know felons who used the education they received after their crime and made themselves better people. I think this will open up the college to a law suit as it could be considered discriminatory.
@Just a dude Of course it would be discriminatory.  That's the point.
We don't allow level III sex offenders to lives in homes with children or near schools. Â That's discriminatory. Â This just asks should those types of violent offenders be allowed in an environment rich with potential victims.
Excuse me, but WTF business is that of theirs?When did these Marxist POS start thinking they were some form of judge-jury-executioner?Somewhere along the road they seem to have forgotten their role in education.They are a public college and have zero business trying to punish people beyond the limits set by law and our (so called) justice system.
@oldster70Â Granted that it's a slippery slope, but at some point protecting other students could trump an individual's not having to suffer consequences of their prior choice of actions.Â
I'm surprised that UW didn't already weed out felons. Felons lose lots of privileges, why not this?
@DrugFighter Once your sentence in complete the only rights you lose are the right to sit on a felony jury and the right to bear arms.  Some states take away your right to vote but not all.
To keep someone who has completed their sentence from an education is simply a from of ongoing punishment. Â Punishment that is supposed to end once the sentence is complete.
@DeadRabitz @DrugFighter When those people have all doors closed for them, sometimes it is that lack of opportunity to move on with their lives that causes them to re-offend. Ex convicts need a chance to re-integrate or they have no choice but to continue their criminal behavior.
@DeadRabitz So there's no latitude in attempting to protect others from persons who have a proven propensity to violence against others?
"questions would identify only people convicted of the most violent crimes. Applicants who have committed those types of crimes would then be evaluated by a panel of mental and community health experts and police."
I could see a private university doing this - but a public university funded with public money?  No way.  This all seems way too arbitrary and potentially discriminatory.
What's the impetus behind all of this, anyways? Â Rape and violent crimes rates are the lowest in 30 years. Â I assume that they weren't doing background checks 20 years ago either, when crime was much worse? Â Why the sudden change of heart now? Â Are their any specific instances of crime that this system would have prevented (in retrospect)? Â Or is this just yet another example of typical American paranoia taking hold? Â
I would expect higher educators to be better than participating in hysteria.
I was taking some pre-reqs at TCC when I came across a notice that was posted on every single door, window, vending machine, ect. It was a notification that a level 3 sex offender was currently enrolled and taking classes there. He'd been charged and convicted of some terrible things against two very young boys.
Turns out that he had been in one of my math classes and had sat next to me on occasion. I have a picture of my kids as the background on my laptop and he had commented about how "beautiful" my children were. Thinking about it today still sends shivers up my spine.
I appreciated that notice. I had previously hosted study groups at my house. I would NEVER knowingly invite a child rapist into my home.
It seems to be an easy issue. Allow violent people to attend online only. That way, they can try to find a better path in life than their violent ways without putting them in the path of temptation.
"We have a high obligation to ensure that this campus is safe." Amen
@George Well, guess it's time for UW to build a perimeter fence and require all students and staff to enter through a locked gate.  There is absolutely nothing stopping any Tom, Dick and Harry from walking on campus and committing a violent crime as it is.
The way we're going as a society, in the next 10 years, employers and colleges will probably demand to know what you're experience and record was before conception. This non-sense is getting out of control -- the "safety hysteria." I see where this is going. Little Johnny looked at Susie in Pre-K and she felt uncomfy. The school dotted him as potential "sex offender" for looking at a girl.Â
@Lisa Summed it up perfectly. This is the state of American society now.
Now let's review, "University of Washington is grappling with the question of whether a student's criminal past should come into play during the admission process". How does this headline reflect their looking the other way policy of the criminal element already present? If a deviant can afford the necessary legal team, we have this recent KOMO headline; "Someone else is going to get victimized a second time". This was a revealing story about a University of Washington fraternity president named Kevin DeBoer. So, if you made a mistake when young, poor, took responsibility and paid the price, you may not be University of Washington material. Hypocrites.
@semprecoraggio Exactly. I wouldn't take this seriously. I bet it's just a PR stunt by UW. As you referred to the story, parents, girls and girly-guys at UW probably went in a tizzy about the need to be protected from everything. So the school is running this but isn't serious. In this era, any student who can actually pay tuition every semester is not something colleges will get rid of. Eventually this era of insanely high tuition/ 0 jobs coming out/ high debt for nothing is going to burst. Schools are raking in as much $$$ as they can before they have to make places reasonably priced if they're going to remain open.Â
This sounds like a expanding form of institutional racism. While this discussion begins with sex offenders, it also includes other serious crimes, but does not give a complete list. With the disproportionate of people with criminal backgrounds being minorities, the UW is adding to the difficulty of a person re-entering society as a productive citizen.Â
@Lonnie Sr ArnoldÂ
I agree. The status quo society will mask discrimination and bias using any tool available. What is next, no gays and lesbians allowed?Â
@Socialjusticeforall  So gays and lesbians all automatically have a criminal history?
Not only State funded, but Title IV, which prevents any activity other than "can get federal funding? Â You're good". Â How will they circumvent that federal regulation?
@ETSubmarinerÂ
It is title VI
Let's see if I understand this...the far left wing, progressive, commie pinko, tree hugging, hate America, liberal "adminstraitors" of the U/W are now considering a criminal background for admittance. Go figure...
@Wormwood The idea of learning and growing from mistakes is a far thing of a past. I feel terrible for young people now a days. Besides how they're being financially raped with outrageous college tuition with little to 0 jobs walking out, they now to be completely flawless. I do agree the liberal educators are going too far. This outrageous "fear" that we need to prevent all crime. I absolutely cannot fathom the idea of banning someone from entering college because they made a mistake at an earlier age. Actually, I even doubt colleges would even put this policy in action. Sucking of young people, grabbing every dollar they can out of them, is more important.Â
@Lisa @Wormwood Most people with no criminal background are far from being "flawless." If young people are aware that those "mistakes" will eliminate their chance of entering a good college, then maybe they will think twice about accumulating those felonies on their records at a young age. I know many lots of young men and women who are working so hard at an "ealier age" so that they can get into a good school for a good future. And they deserve it. It is very scary to me that you believe that you either have a criminal past, or you're flawless. I can see why you have an issue with this.
@Wormwood Your anger and bias is so overwhelming I can't hear what you want to say. All I'm hearing is how much you hate anyone that's left of Ronald Reagan.
Will a student's criminal past include entering the United States illegally?
How about gun ownership as another factor? If a student owns a gun and doesn't submit himself/herself to registration and training, do not let them in because they are the real threats.
@Socialjusticeforall Yeah right, If a student owns a hunting rifle that he used while hunting with his father, but has never commited a voilent crime in his life, he is the real threat. Much more so than some scumbag who rapes women at knife point or who sexually assults kids. Who dropped you on your head as a child. ?
This comment has been deleted
@al_wa @Socialjusticeforall  Â
I really like the quick responses to my posts. Anything to keep the status quo. It wasn't any different one hundred years ago when these signs popped up everywhere "Irish need not apply here". There is strain of DNA in our country that just doesn't want to change.
@Socialjusticeforall
More proof that liberals are insane, liberalism truly is a mental condition.@Socialjusticeforall When is owning a gun a crime?  When does simply owning a gun make you a threat by default?  How about searching Archive.org for every nonsensical post ever made by 'socialjusticeforall'?  Azzhat of the morning already... nice work!
@Socialjusticeforall  You want social justice for all? You sound more like a Nazi.  You know they pretty much ban guns back in your country. Just sayin...
@Goodwin @Socialjusticeforall  Â
My country is the United States and last I checked gun bans aren't in place.
Criminal history in the last 30 years has been intentionally bias towards Latino and black youth. It isn't that they are more violent, it is that white kids get away with it because they get better lawyers (experts tell us all the time that this is case). This is just another bias and discriminatory legal loophole to keep diversity from entering UW. I guess I-200 wasn't enough for some folks.
This is because the "system" doesn't like minorities and "the status quo" will do whatever it takes from keeping demographics changes in higher ed. But guess what? white students aren't the majority any longer and the US is changing. So, please accept the changes and stop the bias and discrimination. Drugs, in particular marihuana related crimes are the reason people of color are put in jail. Now, that Washington State has open the door for marihuana use, this crazy idea cannot use drug conviction as history.  Â
I don't read one single thing in this article that indicates a race issue of any kind. If you are saying that the white race is the minority, then perhaps you will have the decency to blame some of these problems on someone besides them. You insist on making everything a race issue and that's part of what's wrong with this country right now.
@Socialjusticeforall I guess you didnt read the story of the white man nearly killed by a black man following a road rage incident last week. No pot involved there. You are right about the US changing though. Its going to S./&.
dribble with no facts. Statistics don't matter when you "feel" more than others. What a joke.
Â
@Socialjusticeforall Wait... black kids are killed far more often than white kids. The streets have no lawyers. Â
Sometimes the stats don't lie. Â The reason may be poverty, culture, low expectations, but currently your statement that black kids aren't more violent than white kids is demonstrable, provably, statistically factually incorrect. Â In short, you lie.
@Socialjusticeforall You lie like a rug.
@SocialjusticeforallFlash! Â How about not committing the crime in the first place? Â Then no lawyer needed? Â :rolleyes
@Socialjusticeforall Flash!  How about not committing the crime in the first place?  No matter if you're black, white, purple, yellow etc...  Then no lawyer needed?  :rolleyes
@Socialjusticeforall , I suppose the "white kids" shooting up Rainier Valley and killing each other aren't getting arrested or prosecuted while the "Latino and black youth" get sent to prison for these crimes. I suppose the "white kids" engaging in strong-armed robberies in the University District are getting off scot-free while the "Latino and black youth" take the fall for these violent offenses. Thanks for enlightening me.
@StringerJoe.....@Socialjusticeforall has no idea about life outside their world of make believe...
@Seahawksman There's a lot of people like that in the Pacific Northwest. They spend next-to-every hour of next-to-every day reading material they think to be "the truth." When they don't read, they go out in marches and tell anyone who disagrees with them they should "read a book" while the rest of us with common sense and an understanding of what things are really like are left to baffle.Â
@Socialjusticeforall  "experts tell us all the time that this is case" Really? Isn't that what people say when they are making thing up?
@SocialjusticeforallViolent offenders are not individuals liberals should be playing pretend about. Other students are paying customers and have a right to a safe environment. The ACLU and the thug huggers here are playing with fire and are always happy to throw other people under the bus in the name of their agenda. UW is on the right track about evaluating serious offenses and trying to make this into a racial issue is trying to bend it to fit an agenda. The fact remains that most people who get arrested for violence were arrested because they did the violence, not because the "system" goes out looking for minorities to put in jail everyday. Grow up.  Â
@Citizen#3457899654...@Socialjusticeforall never gets tired of seeking a sense of self worth by engaging in a debate with a ridiculous statement. Then follows up with the "prove me wrong" position.