13 Responses to “He’s applying for admission — but has violent past”

1. Hilario R. Monreal Says:
   June 25th, 2009 at 1:25 pm

   There really was not enough information to come to a solution. For example, how old is this person? how long ago did this occur? Does he still have this problem now? What were the circumstances of the arrest? How long did he serve? While all of these factors must be considered, the individual does have rights that have long been protected by our Constitution and Bill of Rights. I believe this information is critical in assessing a decision in allowing the candiate to attend school. I realize this action by Penn State is for the safety of the students at the campus. However everyone has made a mistake of some kind when they were young or old. Everyone I believe should be afforded a second chance. Most institutions put students on probation the first semester. I see nothing wrong in putting this individual on “academic probation” for a semester. Attending classes whether they are free or not is just another way of targeting people or preventing them to attend which some people do not appreciate. Screen indivduals by all means but monitor them. This is why we have a campus police is it not?

2. Pauline Ellefson Says:
   June 25th, 2009 at 1:28 pm

   I agree with Hilario’s comment.

3. Steven Hodder Says:
   June 25th, 2009 at 1:38 pm

   Campus police have enough to do without monitoring a specific person. That level of monitoring would probably be taken as harrassment. The counseling sessions were a way of monitoring him. If he had really moved beyond what had caused his legal problems, the counseling would not have been a problem and he would have seen them as a reasonable way for him to show that he had moved on. The fact that he did not go to the sessions tells me that he had not dealt with his problems in a positive manner.

4. Suzanne Parker Says:
   June 25th, 2009 at 1:46 pm

   I agree with Hilario to a point. I believe that if this student really wanted to attend college he would have complied with the simple request to see a counselor five times during the semester. After all, we could all use some counseling at some point and to ask that someone see a counselor for a total of about five hours in a semester is not all that unreasonable.

5. Rochelle Says:
   June 25th, 2009 at 1:51 pm

   Yes all that police monitoring certainly helped at Virginia Tech.

   I completely disagree with the statement, “However everyone has made a mistake of some kind when they were young or old” as an argument as to why this guy deserves a second chance in school without any sort of monitoring other than academic probation. Sure no one is perfect but the “mistakes” here deal with the safety of others. It’s not like he made the “mistake” of drinking too much one time at a frat party and woke up next to a toilet. I’ve made mistakes on math quizzes, but it didn’t put anyone’s lives in a jeopardy. To be convicted of something one usually has to have a pattern of this behavior for the odds of actually being arrested and convicted to happen. What is so discriminatory about having to attend counseling sessions? If anything it might help the person.

6. Jama Says:
   June 25th, 2009 at 5:32 pm

   I work at a large university and have seen some horrible things happen because of student/staff/faculty behaviors. After 20.5 years of working here and knowing what can happen, I feel mandatory background checks should be run on the students, as it is with faculty and staff. I believe it would increase safety in dorms, in classrooms, or about campus. I also believe allowing a person to attend on a probationary basis and asking them to attend counseling is an acceptable request.

7. Rick Says:
   June 27th, 2009 at 10:52 am

   Wow! Being monitored by the police is less intrusive than quietly going to five counseling sessions? That statement is jaw-dropping. It assumes that people who make serious mistakes were exhibiting random behaviors that are unlikely to be repeated. Worse, it also seems to suggest that police monitoring will somehow enable the individual to overcome any problems that might have led to the criminal actions in the first place. I believe that the school was at least reasonable if not “entirely reasonable” in their proposal. The amount of compensation sought under the law suit is outrageous and suggests to me that the this individual has a long way to go to overcome the problems that led to his criminal behavior. Doing nothing is a misguided application of a misunderstanding of individual rights.

8. Sally Says:
   June 29th, 2009 at 10:31 am

   The university that employs me has a policy and a committee that evaluates applicants with a past felony conviction or those who have been suspended or dismissed from another educational institution. This depends on applicant self-disclosure however. We do a very thorough check on the applicant after having them sign a release. This includes interviews with probation or parole officers, employers, and the applicant. A committee then evaluates the results to assess whether or not the applicant can be successful at the university and to ensure that he or she is not a threat to campus. This committee would also place any conditions on acceptance, such as no on campus housing or no privilege to drive a vehicle on our campus.

9. Colette Says:
   June 29th, 2009 at 1:41 pm

   Did the student make it through the semester without any problems. It appears he did so now what. The law suite which was thrown out perhaps was asking for damages (future) becuase hewas not allowed the opportunity by the university to obtain a college degree. A college degree provides higher salary opportunities, right? The race thing was race was he, and which race is it that has caused more harm to students on hitgh school and college campuses? Ask and answer and the reality is I can not remder a decision with the lack of information, and you all should not have been able too unless you know who the individual is. I was just reading the shared info. Be safe in all you do.

10. Sharon Says:
    July 1st, 2009 at 10:27 am

    Background checks have become even more prevalent these days in light of all of the violence on our campuses. There would be no reason to conduct these checks if nothing is ever done with the information. I do agree that morei information is needed before we pass judgment (i.e.: how long ago did this occur, what has he been doing since the conviction/time served, how long did he serve time and how was his behavior, etc.). Giving this individual probationary stipulations would not be too much in my opinion for his first semester. This probationary period would likely happen on most jobs that hire convicted felons so why not on a college campus. Especially given the nature of his crime. I don’t like to assume the worst in a person or that history will repeat itself, but university officials cannot bury their heads in the sand either. In the end, the “legal” way to do it is to make a university policy on how to deal with these types of situations so that all future situtations are dealth with in the same manner.

11. Bill in SFO Says:
    July 1st, 2009 at 2:10 pm

    First, as many others pointed out, there is no information in this article to even begin to render an opinion let alone make the decision the University made. Second, in case everyone missed it, the US penal system still operates under the rehabilitation model (a separate debate on its effectiveness is for another day). Young people make mistakes that end up putting them in lifelong jeopardy of any future because once convicted always convicted. What about the kid that gets popped for carrying an ounce of pot, should he be denied a college education? Should he have to attend counseling for pot smoking?

    A guideline from employment law might be useful in this case as follows:

    “Asking job applicants to indicate whether they have been convicted of a crime is permissible but Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 appears to restrict an employer’s ability to use criminal background information in the hiring process (42 USC. § 2000e, et seq. ). The Equal Employment Opportunities Commission (EEOC), the federal agency that enforces Title VII, has decided that disqualifying people who have criminal records from jobs is discriminatory because the practice disproportionately affects African American and Hispanic men. (Those two groups have much higher criminal conviction rates than do Caucasian men.)

    The EEOC has ruled repeatedly that covered employers cannot simply bar felons from consideration, but must show that a conviction-based disqualification is justified by “business necessity. ” The legal test requires employers to examine the (1) nature and gravity of the offense or offenses, (2) length of time since the conviction or completion of sentence, and (3) nature of the job held or sought. Under this test, employers must consider the job-relatedness of a conviction, the circumstances of the offense, and the number of offenses (EEOC Compliance Manual, § 604 Appendices).”

    Specifically in PA:

    Employers in Pennsylvania may only consider a job applicant’s felony or misdemeanor convictions if they relate to the applicant’s suitability for employment.26 Occupational licensing agencies may consider any felony, but only job related misdemeanor convictions.27 The applicant is entitled to a written explanation if he or she is denied employment based upon a criminal history, or licensure based upon a conviction. (This Article states that the public agency or private employer shall consider the following factors: (a) the public policy of the State to encourage the licensure and employment of people with criminal convictions; (b) the specific duties and responsibilities necessarily related to the license or employment; (c) the bearing, if any, the criminal offense will have on the applicant’s fitness to perform job duties or responsibilities; (d) the time elapsed since the criminal offense; (e) the age of the person at the time of the criminal offense; (f) the seriousness of the offense; (g) any information produced by the person, or produced on his or her behalf, in regard to rehabilitation and good conduct; and (h) the legitimate interest of the public agency or private employer in protecting property, and the safety and welfare of specific individuals or the general public.)

    While it might be argued that the provision stated under (h) above is reason enough to have blocked this persons college education I wonder if the conviction was serious enough to warrant such action. I have had students that ended up in bar fights which would quickly give them a rap sheet for drunkenness, “simple” assault, and even harassment. I suggest that Penn State went beyond necessity in requiring the counseling, why not just pin a yellow star on the individual’s chest? On the other hand, probation for the first semester is very reasonable since all employers generally have such conditions of employment for all hires. Why should the education system be different than what we would expect in the public realm? Paranoia is not justification for denying this individual of the opportunity for lifelong improvement.

    Of course, you all can just start carrying guns, which seems to be the solution on some campuses in this country!

12. Kevin Rosecrans Says:
    July 1st, 2009 at 3:10 pm

    If he had finished his time and was released by the state back into the population, what right does a university have to give him another sentence. 5 days seems short and He should have done it just to keep this paternalistic university staff off his back. At the university where I work the Greek community does far worse things every semester, but they get a pass because their families give to much money to the Univ. If they are going to do this for one then everybody that has a record including traffic should go to 5 mandatory days of counseling. Seems fair but I am sure that this will seem extreme to most.

13. Pam Says:
    August 21st, 2009 at 10:04 am

    Could be considered a dispositional issue especially if the prospective student was applying for a program leading to certification in a school system. These questions are asked b/c some states will not allow convicted offenders to be certified to work with students in public schools. why have the student pay all the money for courses when possibly a degree and certification wouldn’t be granted? We don’t know all the facts so it’s hard to say.

Leave a Reply