Amidst an ongoing national debate about the criminal justice system’s treatment of minorities, MJ Knoll-Finn, New York University's Vice President for Enrollment Management, recently asked the Common Application to investigate the value of questions regarding college applicants’ criminal and disciplinary histories. Noting “high rates of school discipline and incarceration among people of color,” Knoll-Finn questioned whether the Common Application’s checkboxes asking applicants to self-report any disciplinary actions taken by their schools after ninth grade or any convictions in a court of law served a productive purpose. She also asked whether these questions have led to an unjust rejection of applicants simply “on the grounds of safety.”

These same questions have been at the center of the national discussion on criminal justice reform. Last month, in response to student protests and a New York City law preventing employers from asking about criminal pasts until the last stages of the hiring process, NYU’s Silver School of Social Work removed the criminal conviction box from its application. In November, President Obama directed federal agencies to stop asking prospective government employees about their criminal histories on initial job applications.

Indisputably, the U.S. criminal justice system has continually failed to serve people of color, and all American institutions need to take steps to correct this history of unequal treatment. In the context of college admissions, however, the correct response is not to “ban the box.” Rather, universities should approach the application process holistically, in a way that acknowledges the discrimination that exists in the justice system.

If we truly believe that the function of the criminal justice system is rehabilitation—and not simply punishment—we should reflect this attitude in how we perceive and treat those with criminal pasts, especially in the context of education. Much too often, a criminal record is linked with poor access to schooling. If we erect further barriers to education in front of all those with criminal histories, we risk condemning far too many of our fellow citizens to a vicious cycle of hardship and recidivism. Rather than blindly rejecting individuals for checking “yes” or creating byzantine additional procedures for them, colleges should look at the admissions process as an opportunity for applicants to demonstrate rehabilitation. Many schools like NYU already take this attitude towards the criminal history question, and it should be the standard among all American universities.

Of course, a history of criminal activity can still be a valid reason for universities to deny admission. Many colleges instituted the current iteration of "the box" in an effort to address real safety concerns that remain just as legitimate today. When considering whether an applicant has committed an offense worthy of rejection, colleges must simply remain aware of a criminal justice system that has disproportionately punished certain groups.

One way in which some schools could exhibit more such awareness is by eliminating questions that ask applicants whether they have been arrested or cited for certain crimes, even if the incident did not result in conviction. Given the lack of evidence in such cases, these questions are particularly onerous and unjust.

As President Obama put it last month when he announced his decision to "ban the box" on federal job applications, we “should not use criminal history to screen out applicants before we even look at their qualifications.” While we do not suggest banning the box on college applications, we urge that all universities take extra care to ensure that their admissions procedures do not perpetuate broader inequities.