Pubdate: Fri, 26 Mar 2004 Source: Battalion, The (TX Edu) Copyright: 2004 The Battalion Contact: http://www.thebatt.com/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/1137 Author: Lindsay Orman Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/hea.htm (Higher Education Act) UNFAIR DRUG LAW Scholarship Policy Punishes Students for Crimes Already Handled by The Courts Something is horribly amiss when the government will grant federal aid for education to violent offenders such as murderers, rapists, arsonists, armed robbers and child molesters, but not to a former drug offender trying to get his life back on track. Something is not right when such a law affects drug offenders from wealthy families very little while robbing those convicted of the same crime in poorer families of the opportunity for an education. Something is terribly wrong with a law when its author has encouraged those who have suffered because of it to sue the government. A provision enacted in October 1998 under the Higher Education Act bans past drug offenders from receiving student financial aid but does more harm than good and fails to accomplish the purpose for which it was originally established. According to the provision, aid in the form of federal grants and loans is suspended for one year following a first drug offense and two years following the second. For students, this means that as many as 26,000 applicants were refused assistance in 2003, not including those who never bothered to apply as a result of the rule, University Wire reported. Many of the would-be students were denied aid on account of drug possessions for which they had already been punished and sentenced years before. For them, the law did not deter drug use, as was its intent, but rather in ex post facto style "end(ed) up discouraging people from moving on with their lives," as Michael Dean, a Denver-based substance abuse counselor told The New York Times. "At what point in our society do we say that a person has paid their debt?" His concern is echoed by Jason Bell, a senior at San Francisco State University who served almost 10 years in prison for attempted murder and now assists other ex-convicts in getting a higher education. Bell wonders how he managed to fund his education through federal loans and grants - without a problem - while so many convicted of much more minor crimes have such difficulty. "It's a form of double jeopardy," he told the Times. "They do the time, but then there are still roadblocks when they finish. I don't believe people should be punished twice." The author of the law, Rep. Mark Souder, R-Ind., agrees. "It's absurd on the face of it," he told the Times. Souder blames the Clinton and Bush administrations for the misapplication of the law, saying they transformed it from its intended purpose of discouraging drug use among financial aid recipients to a means of keeping reformed offenders from getting an education, arguably the most essential factor in rising above a life of drug use. Education is especially important for poor students, if they are to escape poverty and the lifestyle of crime that so often accompanies it. These students are hardest hit by the law, as wealthier students are more likely to attend college, without federal aid. The discrimination is intensified by the fact that wealthy families are also more likely to avoid drug convictions in the first place, as they can afford more expensive legal counsel, according to University Wire. In defense of the provision, proponents cite the stipulation that students can regain aid through attending drug treatment. However, many treatment programs are as expensive as a year of college, coverage by private insurance companies is scant and in some states such as Connecticut, subsidies for inpatient youth treatment have been virtually eliminated, as reported by The Associated Press. "If I couldn't afford to pay for school, then how was I supposed to pay for these programs?" one student said to the Times. Congress is scheduled to clarify the law, as the president's latest budget includes a commitment for its revision. According to the proposed change, the law would then apply only to students already in college when the offense was committed. Though this revised law would be better than the first, it would continue to discriminate against poor offenders and hinder small or first-time offenders from finishing their educations in a move more conducive to perpetuating their drug use than ending it. As Jen Choi points out in The Lantern, Ohio State University's newspaper, both the current law and the proposed revision must be abandoned as they are contrary to the "ultimate goal of the Higher Education Act, to make college more accessible to all students; not more difficult." - --- MAP posted-by: Richard Lake