Admitted Blog

Every other week, the Journal of College Admission will highlight a current article or other Journal-related findings. In this post, we hear more from Bradley D. Custer, the author of “Admission Denied: A Case Study of an Ex-Offender” (Downloads: Member / Non-member), who assesses how admission officers handle applicants with criminal histories.

Are there any other ex-offender cases, besides Susan's, that you'd like to share?

Every college applicant has a story of their past, hopes for college, and dreams for the future. Applicants with prior criminal history have unique and sometimes dramatic stories and their needs for higher education are markedly different. After reading over 50 essays from ex-offender applicants, I learned that the applicants reacted to the special admission policy requirements differently, and each could serve as an insightful case study. Many recognized the importance of following the application instructions, answering the questions completely, and giving the level of detail needed so that they would have a better chance of being admitted. Others, including Susan, resisted providing details of their criminal past and questioned the institution’s reasons for requiring the disclosure. Still others plead with the application reviewers to admit them because they needed higher education more than anything else to improve their lives. One must remember that there is a unique person behind each application who deserves a fair chance to attend college, which leads me into the next question.

Are there any specific ways admission officers can help ex-offenders applicants?

The most important way admission officers and review committees can help ex-offenders is by giving their application a thorough, individualized review. No college applicant should be denied from a college on the basis of prior criminal history without sufficient information that indicates the applicant is a true threat to the campus, in my opinion. Each applicant has a unique story, and while people who commit crimes should accept personal responsibility for their actions, the role of admission officers/committee is not to re-judge a person for their past crimes. Instead, they should evaluate the available information to determine if the applicant’s criminal history might reasonably predict near future acts of misconduct, which is an evaluation process that takes specialized training. There are also compelling legal reasons to review applications individually and to justify admission decisions. In a case of application reviews done incorrectly, check out this ACLU case from Michigan.

I also want to add that patience is so important. The special admission process is puzzling for applicants, and they may call or visit multiple times with questions about the process. Remember that this process goes above and beyond what most college applicants must go through, and it can be a challenging barrier. I once spoke with a county jail administrator and told him about these admission practices. He had no idea that colleges and universities were seeking criminal history information to make admission decisions, which he thought was a mistake. This tells me that parole/corrections officers may not be preparing ex-offenders for this step in the admission process when encouraging them to enroll in college. Keep this in mind when applicants struggle to obtain official copies of court records or when they hesitate to share details about charges. Without proper advisement, they may not know how to comfortably explain their history and will be wary of judgment.

What is the most common misconception held about ex-offenders?

The assumption that all ex-offenders are dangerous is how these admission practices originated. This in itself is a common misconception. Ex-offenders exist among us in the public every day at the grocery store, the mall and at the gym. Are they any more dangerous in the classroom or on campus? When I speak with colleagues who operate these screening processes, I learn that most ex-offender-applicants are ultimately admitted anyway, which I also found in my study at one institution. This indicates that most ex-offenders who are applying to colleges do not pose an immediate threat to the college, which is why I question this process in its entirety. As always, we need more assessment and research to learn about ex-offender acceptance rates and to learn once and for all if the process does any good. Bottom line: not all ex-offenders need to be feared.

If you were an admission officer, what would you have done differently in Susan's case?

While it is very important that applicants fully comply with college admission policies and procedures, it is evident to me that Susan made a substantial effort to comply by writing two essays for the application review committee. The committee obtained public court records, as they did for all applicants, and could see exactly her charges and sanctions. The committee pressed her for a third time to provide the anecdotal details of the incidents, but she finally refused and withdrew her application. In my personal opinion, the information collected from public court records, from Susan’s first two essays, and from her other application materials were sufficient to determine that she clearly did not pose a threat to the campus community, not to mention that she had been attending a local community college without incident. Because she was also academically eligible, I believe that Susan should have been admitted under the probationary status that was typical for other applicants with similar, non-threatening histories. In this case, the process itself was the barrier, not Susan’s criminal history.

Now, post-publication, is there anything you'd like to add?

On April 18, I was elated to read a surprisingly timely article in The Chronicle of Higher Education, “Students’ Prior Criminal Histories Don’t Predict Future Misconduct, Research Finds.” Reporter Libby Sander summarized a recent study conducted by Carol W. Runyan and published in Injury Prevention that adds more evidence to the literature suggesting that special admission policies do not yield the intended outcome. In this case, the researcher studied the screening process at one university and found that it didn’t accurately predict which future college students would misbehave. (The presumption of course is that ex-offenders are more likely to re-offend or violate campus policies than non-ex-offenders.) More studies like this one are needed to challenge the reliability of these practices, and I encourage all admission officers who implement special admission policies to employ sound assessment practices to test their policy outcomes regarding campus safety and the personal effects experienced by individual applicants.

Bradley Custer is the coordinator, code of conduct at Moraine Valley Community College near Chicago (IL). He holds bachelor's degrees in French and music education from Capital University (OH) and a master’s degree in student affairs from Wright State University (OH). His research interests include student conduct, assessment and students with felony convictions.