Comments

2
UW is adding these questions as the result of a moral panic. No effort to create it after any of the huge number of recent mass shootings, but let one person suggest that sometimes pedophiles are capable of holding thoughts in their heads other than raping children (sometimes, they like to do this in the presence of other adults!) and, well, we can't have that. Because it is the job of the university to punish pedophiles.

Now, if it had followed up the initial article with an institutional research study which showed that this screening process would have reduced the number of violent incidents by students (say, most the people who threatened their teachers or battered their girlfriends on campus already had prior convictions - because middle class white guys who rape their girlfriends in high school are arrested at high rates, as we all know), then maybe it would make sense. But it didn't.
3
Will this be applied to the football team as well? That's how most of the felons make their way into the university -- they're invited there.

But it is stupid to deny college to former convicts, because you're actually increasing the chances that they will reoffend by excluding them from society. If you're not prepared to kill them or imprison them forever you have provide an open possibility of reintegrating into society. This rule makes us all less safe, not more.
4
Seattle Times strikes again. It excels at fear-mongering and highlighting low-incidence, high-profile events (2 registered sex offenders in attendance at UW) to create a non-issue.

Let's just expand the civil commitment laws, shall we, to include anyone who ever had a record. Let's place everyone at McNeil Island based on fears of what they MIGHT do and create a city of social lepers at tax payer expense. What an illusion of protection. I can see the ST leading the charge, hoping for another self-congratulatory award given by clueless peers.

These UW students would have been monitored by the county probation department if they were Level 3.

@3 is right: if former felons (and yes, that includes the dreaded sex offender label) have to hide out on the fringes of our world, expect increased recidivism.

5
So long as the football team answers honestly.
6
Well, since the application fee will probably include a background check now, it seems you might as well be honest about what your background is.

I honestly don't see a problem with disclosing your criminal background. Employers ask these questions, and definitely do background checks to verify your honesty and history, so I don't see a problem with higher education engaging in the same process.

I understand the worry: one mistake in your past preventing any good in your future. In that case, perhaps we need a process similar to civil rights re-enfranchisement to felons with respect to employability?
7
@3 Maybe it does, but campus violence is becoming a bigger issue, especially as college campuses grow in both size and density. I don't believe in denying people their rights to improve themselves ("The Pursuit of Happiness" from the Declaration of Independence) but since safety is usually the biggest concern on a college campus that criminally violent history is an important thing to check against for people on your campus.
8
"can only serve to widen the gap in educational racial disparities."

UW is 30% Asian. Pretty sure UW is diverse enough unless Asians don't count.
9
"So long as the football team answers honestly."

I believe that will "only serve to widen the gap in educational racial disparities."
10
"Will this be applied to the football team as well? "

No way, that would "only serve to widen the gap in educational racial disparities."
11
@3 I'm pretty sure most college football players commit felonies after they've been admitted.
12
Good thing Fnarf is always here to remind us to watch out for those darkies on the football and basketball teams!
13
@11 before and after. Just ask the Ducks.
14
i posted that article to facebook when it first appeared, and made the argument that they should not have been outed and posed no increased risk to the student body based on the particular crimes that they had committed. (the students were at far greater risk from the date/acquaintance rapists on campus that had not yet been caught, that the sex offender registry can be misleading, they were far more likely to reoffend if we continue to marginalize them, they'd paid their debt, the (un)constitutionality of the special commitment center vs if that's where we are going to treat them like they belong, then why aren't they there? etc etc.) i was uniformly put through the ringer as being soft on pedophiles, not caring about student safety, the pedos had zero right to privacy, etc etc. i tried my damnedest to fight that fight, but there was no getting through. my entire argument was chewed up and spit back at me by people who were not willing to listen.

but, more to the point of this post: the more barricades we throw up in front of people who are just trying to move forward and improve their lives, the more likely they are to reoffend. and given our egregiously racist legal system, adding questions such as these to the college application process can only further cement the disparity that is but one result of it. it feeds an already vicious cycle.
15
@14: Well-stated.
16
@14: indeed, well said.
17
In Washington State, Western Washington University asks a relatively narrow question about criminal background, quite similar to that which will be asked by UW. Eastern Washington asks a question about sex offenses. In addition, Seattle University, Gonzaga University, Seattle Pacific University, University of Puget Sound, Pacific Lutheran University, Whitman, Whitworth as broader questions about both disciplinary school histories and criminal backgrounds including convictions for misdemeanors.

But, Washington State University does not.

18
Has anyone asked the victims of these sex offenders how they feel about this?

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.


Add a comment
Preview

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.