Comments & Discussion

Boston University moderates comments to facilitate an informed, substantive, civil conversation. Abusive, profane, self-promotional, misleading, incoherent or off-topic comments will be rejected. Moderators are staffed during regular business hours (EST) and can only accept comments written in English. Statistics or facts must include a citation or a link to the citation.

There are 19 comments on BU Graduate Programs “Ban the Box” on Applications, Viewed as Contributing to Inequity

  1. I support “banning the box” at BU, and in all applications for higher learning and employment. I would ask BUToday to consider changing the headline for this story to something like “BU Graduate Program Applications ‘Ban the Box,’ Widely Seen as Contributing to Inequity” or “”BU Graduate Programs Join the Movement to ‘Ban the Box,’ an Antiracist Policy.” These are clunky — and I trust you experts to do the wordsmithing. The current headline simplifies a complex issue around race and incarceration rates; without reading the whole article, the headline just promotes a stereotype.

    1. Couldn’t agree more. The implied message in the headline (BU Graduate Programs Ban the Box on Applications to Boost Diversity) clearly blames the victim; the victim of what should be acknowledged as discriminative policy at best, systemic racism at worst.

      1. But what if the ‘victim’ you think is being blamed actually had a REAL victim of a possible violent assault? Like ALUM points out, sexual assault, rape or distributing child pornography? Is it possible to ‘ban the box’ for so called ‘victimless crimes’ but have some type of contingency for applicants with a history of violent crimes?

    2. A number of BU Today readers questioned our headline. And upon further review, those were fair comments, and points, and we have adjusted the headline accordingly. As always, we appreciate such feedback.

  2. “There’s no evidence having this box makes universities safer.”

    There’s also no evidence that Coronavirus doesn’t spread through Zoom and cellphones, or that Santa Claus isn’t married to the tooth fairy either (I’m being deliberately glib here). The implication is that a past criminal record does not indicate future criminal proclivity – unfortunately, I think that there is ample evidence on recidivism rates to prove the opposite.

    The proper way to test this hypothesis is to look at changes to a school’s crime statistics before and after such a change. Perhaps those with serious criminal records are not applying to schools that ask about it?

    1. Ironically, your point makes the case for banning the box even stronger. Indeed, if we continue to make it more difficult for people involved with the criminal legal system to buy back into the social contract, by excluding them from educational opportunities, employment, voting, housing, etc., we will continue to see high recidivism rates.

      And this truth doesn’t even take into account how heavily bias the criminal legal system is in its uneven application of the law.

      1. You have a point.

        However, our social contract is broken … pedophiles like Epstein get off with a slap on the wrist (at least the first time), able to continue abusing, whereas those with fewer means languish in long prison sentences.

        The answer is not to remove the information about criminal history, but to enhance it so that an informed decision can be made.

  3. Another step in the right direction. On a related note if you haven’t seen it yet take the time to watch Ava DuVernay’s documentary film 13th. Lots more to be done.

  4. There are some crimes that are heinous and the school should know about
    Wouldn’t it be better if the box was checked and the U can determine if the person is safe to be at the university or at least have check in
    often

  5. This is good news, but why stop there. If a student was suspended or expelled from school, which is asked on the BU application, should that box go away as well? Most suspensions and expulsions don’t even involve the criminal justice system and the students aren’t even afforded due process like convicted criminals. That question should be removed in the same vein. That will add even more to the diverse applicant pool.

  6. A number of BU Today readers questioned our headline. And upon further review, those were fair comments, and points, and we have adjusted the headline accordingly. As always, we appreciate such feedback.

  7. I think this is irresponsible for the university to overlook criminal history in the admissions process. This “Ban the Box” movement is controversial because of campus safety, decreases character/moral of the student body, decrease in general standards and in overall quality. When people reflect on why did you chose to attend BU… Well, it sure wasn’t because of it’s criminal diversity. Do you think that people will have nice things to say about BU, when it is widely known as a safe haven for felons, rapists, thieves and drug dealers? The less apparent reason would be why would any law-abiding individual who has worked hard to pay for their tuition want their money to be supplied as an indirect source for a criminal’s scholarship? The university needs to know who they are accepting into their school, what kind of characters they are admitting to such a competitive, and highly-regarded university. With this mindset, you may as well remove the box for academic integrity violations too and conduct violations.

    1. Anonymous, your comment might be valid if the criminal legal system was an accurate reflection of character; an accurate reflection of who did and did not commit bad behavior. In fact, it is not. It’s only an accurate reflection of who this racially biased, socio-economically biased, class biased system caught up in its system. By maintaining “the box” we are complicit in this injustice; we kick the corrupt can down the road; we further the destruction of lives that matter and are of no lesser character than those whose privilege affords them a criminal record free pass. All this, enabled by our denial of the truth that criminal legal system is anything but fair; enabled by our denial that the privileged with histories of bad behavior are screened from our presence. They are not. Those with privilege who benefit from a criminal legal free pass bring their character flaws with them and have always been among us…while we pretend we are safe.

      1. According to this worldview, and view of American society, there is no such thing as a person at least being partially responsible for the criminal acts they commit – IF you’re a person of color.

        That is if a white person commits an assault, rape or murder it is not because the unjust system made him do it (you see the system only discriminates against people of color), but because he made horrible and evil choices to commit a felony. However if a person of color commits a similar felony, it is always because of systemic racism. Really? No personal responsibility is ever involved here, if your melanin level is sufficiently brown? Not some combination of horrible choices and bad luck by birth? It’s always 100% the system if you’re brown? Interesting…

        To refine this idea (of not asking for criminal history on an application) to perfection, using this logic, you could ask the race of the person on the application and then not require a person’s criminal history only if the person is non-white. Perfect!

        But, on a non-ironic note, buried deep down in the “systemic racism is responsible for all evil and disparity” dogma, there is potentially a good idea. Namely for non-violent crimes, for victimless crimes, for teenagers doing stupid things or if a person seems to have turned their life around (by not committing more crimes for a while), people should be given breaks and helped to become part of society again. There is a lot to be explored as far as prison reform is concerned. I would be totally on board with looking into those ideas.

Post a comment.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *