Unfortunately, time machines do not comply with the laws of physics. We cannot change our past, but only work toward a better future.

Starting in the fall of 2009, NIU implemented a criminal background disclosure on the application for undergraduate admissions. While housing and many college departments have had similar disclosure questions, the 2009 policy that broadens the selectivity of NIU deserves concern.

The concern that this policy warrants is not due to its current application, but for potential discrimination in the future. Instead of set policy guidelines which would bar a potential student from admissions due to a pattern of criminal history, severity of offense, and time elapsed, the applicants who disclosure their criminal history are reviewed by a committee made up of faculty from academic, housing, counseling, legal services and one police officer.

John Jones, associate vice president of Student Affairs and Enrollment Management, said since the implementation of the new disclosure policy, 192 applicants have been reviewed by the committee. Out of these 192 applicants, 26 have been denied. Out of those 26 denials, six appealed and three were admitted.

Although only 12 percent of reviewed applicants end in denial, the threat of that proportion increasing is too great.

I doubt it is by coincidence that this policy was implemented the semester after the Feb. 14 shootings. And with the Feb. 19 shooting outside Stevenson Hall, and the other gun crimes committed this year, it would be foolish to believe that the guidelines for admissions would loosen.

To quickly clarify, the other gun crimes were not perpetrated by NIU students, however, I am sure some of you got that impression. It is important to note that connotation between crime and NIU, because I am sure it happens in the community at large when residences hear of an early 20-something-year-old who has been charged with some crime.

And that is why we need to set reasonable guidelines for criminal backgrounds in stone. Reasonable guidelines, in my opinion, would lead to only requiring that an applicant has two years of clean criminal history before admittance to NIU.

Above all, academic institutions have to afford individuals the greatest benefit of change, for they are the most significant drivers of individual growth.

Two years would be the most reasonable. First, it is enough time for an individual to demonstrate that they have understood the consequences of their behavior and accepted responsibility, while being short enough to not impose undue burden on an individual for a mistake.

Second, two years is the perfect amount of time to allow an individual to clear their criminal record by the time of graduation. During the first two years, an individual can work to pay off their fines and complete their probation. By their junior year, enough time will have passed so they can start the year long process of petitioning for executive clemency.

I end with a quote from Paulo Freire, an educator and philosopher: “Transformation is only valid if it is carried out with the people, not for them. Liberation is like childbirth, and a painful one. The person who emerges is a new person: no longer either oppressor or oppressed, but a person in the process of achieving freedom. It is only the oppressed who, by freeing themselves, can free their oppressors.”