Between a Rock and a Hard Place: Navigating Institutional Barriers as a Graduate Student with a Criminal Record

Abstract

Much of the research on college students with criminal records focuses on their undergraduate experiences in traditional higher education settings. In this study, attention is given to graduate students’ experiences. Specifically, I explore how graduate students are navigating through institutional barriers while possessing a criminal record. Through the use of a pre-questionnaire form, a semi-structured interview, and a concept mapping exercise, I was able to collect 10 students’ perspectives to show how they (1) chose to navigate through institutional barriers by proving themselves to others and (2) by choosing if and when to disclose their criminal records. Several implications for practice and research are offered so that graduate programs can use these suggestions to ensure that graduate students with criminal records have access to an equitable education.

Higher Education and Justice-Impacted Students: Toward a Radical Reimagining

“…In McTier (in press), we see the extension of the collateral consequences (Berson, 2013; Lhamon et al, 2019; Pinard, 2006) of conviction into the university setting. When filling out college applications, most people skim past the criminal background questions, answering “No.” Yet when someone with a criminal legal history answers “Yes,” the application is placed on an administrative hold, and an entirely separate review process begins to determine the merit of an individual.…”

“…Instead, college admissions offices simply enact and accept background check policies, often without knowing why. McTier (in press) presents the case of Richard, a participant in the study, who states, “I had to disclose my former previous criminal conviction and I was wondering why? Like, why do they want to know that?…”

“…Hernandez et al (in press) and McTier (in press) tackle the issue of the collegiate experiences of students with conviction histories, and in both articles, we see that colleges and universities levy their admission processes as fruits of the proverbial poisonous tree; in a field like higher education that has been built on the exclusion of students deemed as “Other,” the various ways that justice-impacted students must prove their worth for admission are rooted in systemic and exclusionary violence (cite). Hernandez et al (in press) note the proactive reframing of the justice-impacted student narratives, where those students did not wait for someone else to define their strengths and existence; instead, the students took the reins and harnessed their own voices to advocate for themselves and others to promote community and persistence within their college environments.…”

“…McTier’s (in press) exploration of the experiences of graduate students with conviction histories sheds necessary light on this population, particularly as it relates to the college admission process. Graduate students with conviction histories have already gone through egregiously bureaucratic processes to complete a 4-year degree; state-level “ban the box” initiatives seek to eliminate that burden during the admission process (Johnson et al, 2021).…”

“…These are solid suggestions if we are looking at the admission process as immutable. However, using Kaba’s (2021) framing of resource allocation, and an emphasis on whether we are advocating for more resources going toward established, oppressive systems or structures, we must ask ourselves if these suggestions are sufficient to reorient higher education institutions that McTier (McTier in press), himself, found had substantial amounts of bias against college students with conviction histories. We argue that a far more radical approach is necessary, an approach that must be supported by progressive institutional leaders, that leverages the asset-based frameworks discussed by Hernandez et al (in press) and reaches outside the siloed confines of higher education to instead the community lessons taught by those steeped in community organizing and outreach through harm reduction and an ethos of meeting people where they are and acknowledging the expertise of lived experience.…”