Blog

 
     

University of Minnesota Adds Ban the Box Policy

By Michael Klazema on 12/13/2016
The University of Minnesota is officially banning the box on its student applications. Per a report from WDAY 6—an ABC affiliate and news station based in North Dakota—the Minnesota state university recently announced the new policy, which will go into effect in 2017. The policy will eliminate questions about criminal history from the admissions application that students must fill out and submit if they are interested in attending the school.

In the past, the University of Minnesota has asked all prospective students if they have any felony convictions on their records. The admissions application has also inquired about whether potential students are facing any pending criminal charges. Per the WDAY 6 report, students applying for admission in fall 2017 or after will no longer have to answer those queries.

Counties, cities, and states across the country have used ban the box policies to bar certain categories of employers from asking candidates about their criminal history. Minnesota is one of the states that, per coverage, has made ban the box policies part of its state legislative agenda. State law requires private employers and public employers alike to scrub questions about criminal history from their job applications.

Usually, as coverage explains, the policies only extend to job applications. While the University of Minnesota could previously have been required to stop asking questions about criminal history on job applications, such questions could remain on admissions applications.

The University of Minnesota is not complying with any laws, ordinances, or other measures in its decision to ban the box for student admissions. Rather, per the institution, the university says that it decided to “ban the box” prospective students because otherwise those criminal history questions might discourage students from applying. Specifically, the university was worried that the policy might be driving away “underrepresented minority populations.”

Since the university doesn’t have to comply with any specific state or regional measures, coverage notes, it can keep certain aspects of its previous policies intact. For instance, the university has said that it will keep questions about sexual offenses and academic dishonesty on the application for admission. Students who have gotten into trouble for academic dishonesty in the past, or those who have been convicted of sex offenses, are still expected to disclose that information on the admission application.

The university has stated that asking about felony history and pending criminal charges is necessary to preserve the safety of its student housing community. Questions about criminal past or present will still be found on the University of Minnesota on-campus housing application.

Sources:

https://www.wday.com/news/minnesota/4173406-u-m-will-ban-box-stop-asking-applicants-about-criminal-history

http://www.nelp.org/content/uploads/Ban-the-Box-Fair-Chance-State-and-Local-Guide.pdf

Tag Cloud
Categories
Recent Posts

Latest News

  • March 13 — A Denver hospital was in the headlines last year for hiring a surgery technician who stole syringes of the painkiller fentanyl. New information suggests that a more thorough background check could have flagged the man’s addiction issues.
  • March 08 — On September 26, 2016, the state of California passed Assembly Bill 1843 that amended the Labor Code by prohibiting employers from asking an applicant for employment to disclose certain juvenile records. The amended Labor Code has been effective since January 1, 2017.
  • March 08 — For the past 5 years, backgroundchecks.com has reported rulings of district courts around the country that have ruled that an employer’s inclusion of a liability waiver or other extraneous information in a disclosure violates the Fair Credit Reporting Act’s (“FCRA”) disclosure requirements found in §604(b)(2)(a). Now, for the first time, a federal court of appeals has weighed in on the disclosure requirement.
  • March 07 — The Kentucky State Senate has approved a piece of legislation that would open the state’s child abuse and neglect registry to schools, camps, and parents. If passed, the law would allow anyone to request a search of the database.
  • March 06 — A federal judge in Florida has ruled that a plaintiff with a case against Amazon.com has the right to sue the company for an alleged violation of the FCRA. The suit accuses Amazon of failing to provide a standalone background check disclosure form free of extraneous information.
  • March 05 — A federal judge in Florida has ruled that a plaintiff with a case against Amazon.com has the right to sue the company for an alleged violation of the FCRA. The suit accuses Amazon of failing to provide a standalone background check disclosure form free of extraneous information.
  • February 21 — In January, a Washington, D.C. contractor was fired for being reckless with confidential patient files. The woman had a criminal record with two felony convictions, but a local background check did not list the offenses.
  • February 16 — A state representative in Wisconsin aims to make it a Class A misdemeanor to lie on a state application for professional licensing. It is illegal to lie on licensing applications but there is no protocol for prosecuting offenders.
  • February 14 — The schools in the University of Wisconsin System are considering criminal background checks for all student applicants. The deliberation was sparked by protests responding to a student on the UW-Madison campus who tried to start a white nationalist group.
  • February 09 — Kentucky Governor Matt Bevin signed an executive order banning the box in the state government’s executive branch.