I am writing in response to your March 10 editorial “Evaluating the ‘Admission Opportunity Campaign.’ ”
In appraising the information and arguments that we as Students for Prison Education and Reform have made available as part of the Admissions Opportunity Campaign, the Editorial Board latched on to one peripheral point of the campaign. In doing so, it failed to accurately represent and evaluate the campaign’s central focus.
In its article, the Editorial Board focuses on the ways in which diversity could be affected by the removal of the question related to past criminal convictions from the undergraduate admissions application. The aim of our campaign is the removal of such a question, based on the belief that the question’s inclusion perpetuates the socioeconomically discriminatory effects of the U.S. criminal justice system. Adding the diverse perspectives of students with past involvement with the justice system to our campus community would be an indirect positive consequence of removing the fundamentally unjust question.
In its current form, the application question asks: “Have you ever been adjudicated guilty or convicted of a misdemeanor, felony, or other crime? Note that you are not required to answer “yes” to this question, or provide an explanation, if the criminal adjudication or conviction has been expunged, sealed, annulled, pardoned, destroyed, erased, impounded, or otherwise ordered by a court to be kept confidential.” Persons obligated to answer “yes” to the question are then provided with space to explain their conviction in whatever way they see fit.
We believe that this question is flawed in multiple ways. By asking about a diverse range of convictions, the question includes persons who were convicted for crimes that did not result in imprisonment, namely crimes of a nonviolent nature. This negatively discriminates towards certain applicants, as studies have shown that law enforcement tactics across the United States target certain socioeconomic areas with intense police surveillance while other areas experience little to no regular police scrutiny. Many students applying to Princeton have partaken in illegal activities. Due to a combination of luck and circumstance, however, few of these applicants have criminal records. By asking about past convictions, Princeton is not asking who has committed a crime, but rather who has been arrested and punished for these crimes by a demonstrably inequitable justice system. Furthermore, economically privileged youth who are convicted of crimes have access to dedicated, experienced, expensive legal counsel and therefore enjoy a greater chance of getting their conviction sealed or expunged than applicants from less privileged backgrounds.
When it comes to those who have been incarcerated, a person’s ability to change over time is something to be valued and would be incorporated within the larger narrative of the application. Applicants would be free to explain the gap in their academic and extracurricular activities in the personal statement or other essay sections. By removing the current binary question, Princeton would stop disincentivizing students from applying while still providing avenues through which applicants could explain their personal stories. The same high standard of admission would continue to apply to all applicants, but applicants would be judged by various complex appraisals of personal merit, including personal essays, extracurricular activities and letters of recommendation, instead of a question that yields responses more linked to external socioeconomic factors than individual merit.
In light of the inequitable and ineffective nature of the U.S. criminal justice system, we believe that the question related to past involvement with the justice system should be removed from the Princeton undergraduate application for admission. As an institution of higher learning dedicated to bettering society through education, Princeton should strive to base its admissions standards on fair evaluation of an applicant’s personal character and academic ability. Given that the information received from the question related to past convictions is flawed, it is best to remove this question. Our campaign does not seek to admit persons with past convictions, but rather to give them the opportunity to compete equally with other applicants.
The Editorial Board notes that other aspects of the application are also biased against the less privileged. The bias in other sections of the application does not excuse maintaining a biased question regarding past involvement with the justice system. And as the recently announced changes to the SAT demonstrate, there is momentum within the higher education community to make the college admissions process more equitable.
The question asking about past convictions was added to the Common Application in 2006 without direct official consent from Princeton. Prior to 2006, Princeton was the same place, a tranquil university with low levels of campus crime. No campus discussion was held in 2006 in order to assess the effects of inclusion of this question on the University’s official application for undergraduate admission. It is time to have that conversation. In doing so, Princeton can maintain its role as a leader in higher education by promoting inclusive admissions standards.
Brett Diehl ’15
President, Students for Prison Education and Reform
Read More
Princeton needs to be a climate justice leader — emphasis on the “climate,” emphasis on the “justice”
Alex Norbrook and Eleanor Clemans-Cope“Princeton must not only withdraw its support from injustices, but also positively re-invest in sustainable and community-informed initiatives.”
“Princeton must not only withdraw its support from injustices, but also positively re-invest in sustainable and community-informed initiatives.”
Princeton must move towards a world-changing curriculum
Luqmaan Bamba“If we in the Orange Bubble are supposed to be taught how to be changemakers, our education should not just stop at learning about change but also extend to the tangible application of it.”
“If we in the Orange Bubble are supposed to be taught how to be changemakers, our education should not just stop at learning about change but also extend to the tangible application of it.”
Statement of solidarity with Columbia University students from Princeton faculty and staff
Guest ContributorsIn an open letter, Princeton University faculty and staff express solidarity with Columbia University and Barnard College student protestors by boycotting the universities until their demands are met.
In an open letter, Princeton University faculty and staff express solidarity with Columbia University and Barnard College student protestors by boycotting the universities until their demands are met.
