Pubdate: Thu, 03 Feb 2005 Source: State News, The (MI State U, MI Edu) Copyright: 2005 The State News Contact: http://www.statenews.com Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/1246 Author: Margaret Harding, The State News Cited: Students for Sensible Drug Policy http://www.ssdp.org/ Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/find?225 (Students - United States) Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/find?219 (Students for Sensible Drug Policy) Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/hea.htm (Higher Education Act) Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/topics/FAFSA Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/people/Tom+Angell Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/people/Mark+Souder DRUG QUESTION ON FAFSA MIGHT BE ELIMINATED Students who apply for financial aid in future years might notice a query missing from the application. The question about whether an applicant has had a previous drug conviction was recommended to be removed from the Free Application for Federal Student Aid, or FAFSA, last week by a congressionally appointed committee. "The drug question is irrelevant - it is not something that should even be taken into account," said Tom Angell, communications director for Students for Sensible Drug Policy. "The appearance of the question on the form could deter students from applying - even if they are actually eligible." MSU's Office of Financial Aid has never denied financial aid to a student because of the question, which was added to the form in 1998, said Val Meyers, associate director for the office. "We have to follow up on people if they answer 'yes,' but most of the time students answer the question incorrectly," Meyers said, adding students sometimes think they have a conviction but nothing appears on their record. Meyers said checking into the student's background can delay the aid process. The issue of students committing drug crimes and still receiving financial aid was a concern of U.S. Rep. Mark Souder, R-Ind. He wrote a provision to prevent students with drug convictions from receiving federal aid that was added in 1998 as an amendment to the Higher Education Act, or HEA. The law was originally written to apply to only those convicted of drug crimes while they are students, or while their application is pending. It was not written to apply to the time before someone is a student, Souder's spokesman, Martin Green, said. But after congress passed the provision, it was misinterpreted to apply to previous drug convictions, Green said. Souder has worked since then, with bipartisan support, to restore the original intent of the law, he said. If people who are convicted of drug crimes before or during the time they are a student complete approved drug rehabilitation programs, which includes passing two unannounced drug tests, they will be eligible for aid, Green said. The current interpretation makes those with drug convictions ineligible for aid, which is contrary to the spirit of the HEA, Angell said. "The HEA was passed in 1965 in order to make college more accessible to people," Angell said. "The law is counterproductive to reduce drug abuse in our country. Many students are left wondering how closing doors to education will help the drug problem." Even though there is no way to know how many students are discouraged by the question, Meyers said she has "a gut feeling" some are. Criminal justice senior Kerry Gerdes said she supports getting rid of the drug question. "If anyone's trying to go to school, they might as well try to get aid," Gerdes said. "After a conviction, the point is to reform - this is causing a problem for people who want to do better." Meyers said there is a worry in using financial aid to control drug use. "There is a general concern about using financial aid as a way to enforce drug laws - they should use law enforcement, not financial aid," Meyers said. But Green said because students are using federal money, they should obey federal laws. "The reasoning behind the law is simple. Students who receive taxpayer money to go to college have to obey the law," Green said, adding it was Souder's belief that if students are using drugs, they probably are not making the most of their education. "They should be adult enough to know to obey the law even if they don't necessarily personally agree with it." - --- MAP posted-by: Richard Lake