Pubdate: Thu, 20 Dec 2001 Source: Chronicle of Higher Education, The (US) Copyright: 2001 by The Chronicle of Higher Education Contact: http://chronicle.com/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/84 Author: Stephen Burd Action: check this website http://www.ssdp.org/ Bookmarks: http://www.mapinc.org/hea.htm (Higher Education Act) http://www.mapinc.org/people/Mark+Souder EDUCATION DEPARTMENT DECLINES TO EASE BAN ON STUDENT AID FOR PEOPLE CONVICTED ON DRUG CHARGES The U.S. Education Department is no longer considering softening a ban on student aid for those convicted of possessing or selling illegal drugs. Department officials say they do not believe they have the legal authority to rewrite the agency's regulations to apply the ban only to those convicted of drug violations while in college, as opposed to those convicted before enrolling. They have concluded that Congress would have to amend the Higher Education Act, the law that governs the federal student-aid programs, to make such a change. Speaking at a public meeting held by the department on Friday, Jeffrey Andrade, a higher-education adviser at the department, said that the agency's lawyers had "looked at this issue nine ways to Sunday" but ultimately concluded that the Higher Education Act does not give the department "the flexibility to address this in our regulations." The department's decision drew a strong rebuke from Rep. Mark Souder, the Indiana Republican who wrote the original drug provision. Mr. Souder has had several meetings with department officials this year, urging them to direct the provision only at students who have bought drugs while receiving federal aid. Department officials met with Mr. Souder on Wednesday to inform him of their decision. After the meeting, Mr. Souder said that he could not understand why department officials were "unwilling to correct an erroneous regulation that is keeping otherwise deserving applicants from receiving federal funds to attend institutes of higher education." In 1998, Congress included Mr. Souder's provision when it revised the Higher Education Act. Since the provision went into effect in 2000, the department has interpreted it to apply to all convictions of possessing or selling drugs, including any convictions as an adult in the years preceding a student's application for federal aid. In the 2000-1 academic year, more than 9,000 students were found to be ineligible for financial aid for at least part of the year under the provision. This year, according to department officials, 14,249 of the 9.8 million students who have applied for aid have lost some or all of their aid because of the provision, depending on when the conviction took place. Depending on how they reply on a follow-up form, an additional 29,000 applicants are in danger of losing their aid because they have either failed to respond to the drug question on their application or have acknowledged a prior drug conviction. Department officials expect that many of these applicants could have their eligibility for aid restored. Many student, university, and drug-law-reform groups have criticized the provision as unfair and unwarranted. Critics say the law has denied aid to many people who have given up drugs and are trying to turn their lives around. Others say the law's penalties would hit a disproportionate number of minority students and students from low-income families. But Mr. Souder maintains that the Education Department has always misinterpreted the provision's intent. He says it was meant to apply only to students while they were in college. Late Wednesday, Mr. Souder said that if the Bush administration does not reverse its position, he would bring department officials before a subcommittee of the House of Representatives Committee on Government Reform that he leads "so that members of Congress can directly ask administration official why they have chosen to deny federal aid to prospective higher education students in clear defiance of the express intent of Congress." - --- MAP posted-by: Richard Lake