Last week, Gov. McAuliffe issued an executive order requiring the removal of criminal history questions from state employment applications in Virginia. According to Executive Order 41, about “70 million American adults have arrests or convictions in their past that can make it difficult for them to obtain employment.” McAuliffe’s decision is intended to give these adults a fair shot at employment. He hopes it will serve as a push for private employers to remove questions about criminal history from their applications, as well.
The decision to “ban the box” came as an executive order because it failed in the General Assembly, passing in the state Senate but blocked by Republicans in the House. The removal of criminal history questions has faced backlash in other states, too. Thirty-five states still require job applicants to detail their criminal histories in the application process, although President Obama and the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission have both called for fair-chance standards. The reason for this backlash stems from the way many Americans view those who have gone to prison. In the comments section of a Cavalier Daily article on this issue, commenters lamented how McAuliffe’s decision might affect “law-abiding people who are looking for jobs.” One commenter argued, “Do you want a convicted criminal poking around where he/she can access the information the Commonwealth has on file about you?”
It is unsurprising that many fear allowing ex-convicts into our state employment system, but it is important to remember that not everyone who is arrested or imprisoned has committed crimes of an equal degree. Many people are imprisoned for non-violent crimes. Of course, this is not to say that any crime is excusable. Anyone who commits a crime ought to serve a fitting punishment, but the system in place often fails, handing out punishments that don’t necessarily fit the crime. Many states use Three Strikes Laws, which mandate that anyone convicted of any crime must serve a life sentence if he has been convicted of two violent crimes prior. In the Supreme Court case Lockyer v. Andrade, the Court held that a man sentenced to 50 years for stealing video tapes from a department store, due to his two prior convictions, did not violate the Constitution’s prohibition of “cruel and unusual punishment.” Officials claim these laws are in place to combat recidivism rates, but requiring disclosure of criminal history on job applications seems contradictory. If we want ex-convicts to rejoin society, it makes no sense to keep them from finding employment. Requiring job applicants to disclose their criminal history seriously limits their chances of finding employment; this can turn even a small charge into a life sentence.
While McAuliffe’s decision addressed job applications exclusively, applicants also have to disclose criminal history when applying to college. The Common Application, as well as many separate applications, includes a question about past convictions, and over 60 percent of schools consider criminal history as a factor in admissions decisions. This system allows even one non-violent conviction at a young age to determine the rest of a student’s life. A study by the Center for Community Alternatives found that people with convictions of any kind often give up on applications that require disclosure of criminal history because the process often means having to answer endless questions and jump through impossible hoops. The Common App began requiring criminal history information in 2006, and many colleges soon followed suit. This practice is problematic because it requires disclosure of any criminal history, making no distinction between severity or relevance of convictions, and the admissions officers who read these files have no training as to how they should interpret such information.
Of course, safety may be a concern for university administrators. Such have concerns have grown since 1986 when a Lehigh University student, Jeanne Clery, was murdered in her dorm, prompting Congress to pass the Clery Act, which requires colleges to publicly report campus violence. One possible solution is to require applicants to disclose criminal history only if they were convicted of a violent crime, but university administrators and admissions offices also need further training in how to weigh and interpret criminal history information.
The issue of criminal history disclosure on college applications is particularly important because of the many studies that have shown the inverse relationship between education and crime. One study at the University of California Berkeley found that “schooling significantly reduces the probability of incarceration.” It is better for everyone if ex-convicts can become contributing members of society, rather than committing additional crimes and returning to prison. Keeping them from obtaining educations and jobs does the exact opposite. Though Governor McAuliffe’s decision has seen some backlash, giving former convicts a fair chance at employment, as well as a college education, is the best thing for the economy and for society. If we continue to keep ex-convicts from returning to normal life, we will continue to see more poverty, more crime and even more overloaded prisons.
Nora Walls is a Viewpoint writer.
Read More
A statement by 40 Jewish faculty and staff on antisemitism and DEI at U.Va.
By Jewish Faculty & Staff at U.Va. | 16 hours agoAs scholars and teachers, we know that dissent and debate strengthen our intellectual commitments and moral judgments rather than threaten them. We reject any attempt to deny these basic truths.
KURTZWEIL: Little sympathy for LittleJohn’s closure
By Paul Kurtzweil | 5 days agoWith a new class of students arriving in August, Corner restaurants will face another test of their price discrimination and thus need to learn LittleJohn’s lesson quickly.
A statement by 401 concerned faculty regarding the crisis of President Ryan’s forced resignation
By Concerned Faculty | 6 days agoWe call on the Board to collaborate closely with faculty in appointing an Interim President to guide the university through this perilous time.
