Pubdate: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 Source: Daily Texan (U of TX at Austin, Edu) Copyright: 2005 Daily Texan Contact: http://www.dailytexanonline.com/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/115 Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/dare.htm (D.A.R.E.) Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/youth.htm (Youth) Part 1 Of 4: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n000/a059.html Part 2 Of 4: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n000/a060.html Part 3 Of 4: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n397/a03.html Part 4 Of 4 FIXING FAFSA'S DRUG PROBLEM Background: This is the fourth of four editorials on the Solomon-Souder amendment to the Higher Education Act. The provision denies federal financial aid for a period of time to those convicted of drug possession or distribution. Congress is reauthorizing the act this year and has the opportunity to repeal the law. Previous editorials dealt with inequity in the current law; this one focuses on prevailing attitudes and possible solutions. People don't think the way Congress did in 1998, when students with drug convictions were barred from receiving financial aid. Not even the law's author. Rep. Mark Souder, R-Ind., has tried several times to change the way this law is interpreted by the Department of Education. He claims the law was never designed to punish people who were convicted of drug offenses before ever receiving financial aid. "Nobody would favor a reach-back provision," Souder told National Public Radio in March 2004. "For example, I am an evangelical Christian. I believe people change. And when they change, we want to encourage them to go to school." Souder wants the law to be changed so that only students who are convicted of drug offenses while they are receiving financial aid get barred. He has blamed the Clinton administration for improperly interpreting the law. Students with one drug possession conviction who apply for financial aid on the 2005-2006 FAFSA will be denied aid for one year. Two convictions extends ineligibility for one year; three means "indefinite" ineligibility. Students with one selling conviction are ineligibile for two years; those with two are barred for life. These bars can be cleared with adequate drug rehab. A bill to amend the Higher Education Act would make Souder's clarifications. Students would only be denied further loans, grants or work-study if they violated drug laws while receiving federal aid. Another bill, filed in early March, would eliminate the language altogether. The proposal is a perennial one from Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass, who has attacked the law for being hypocritical and "hysterical." The American public may be on Frank's side. A private poll conducted in May 2004 concluded that 67 percent of people support "changing" the law, and only 25 percent found it acceptable. The poll was commissioned by Faces & Voices of Recovery, a group that advocates recovery-oriented drug policies, and had a 3.46 percent margin of error. Even university administrators have taken sides in this debate. The National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators has lobbied against the law since 1998 and say they want it repealed. Yale University has gone one step farther: In 2002, the administration approved a policy to reimburse students who lost federal aid through this particular provision. At the time, no Yale student had yet lost aid due to drug convictions, and a university spokesman said the measure was largely a public statement. Student opinion came around a bit more slowly. The earliest editorial available on U-Wire (a free distribution service for college newspapers) actually supported the Solomon-Souder amendment. The Pitt News at the University of Pittsburgh called the measure a "good strategy for 'weeding out' some of the applicants," and said, "If students are not going to be responsible for their lifestyles, the federal government should not be responsible for funding their education." But newspapers did report considerable success for petitions against the restriction. And, aside from the Pitt News editorial, only one other college newspaper has supported the measure (The Iowa State Daily wrote an editorial that seemed to advocate punishing other criminals as well). Thirty-five editorials have opposed it, the latest one being in October 2004. UT Student Government also has the opportunity to step into this debate. SG will consider a resolution tonight that criticizes Bush's proposed policies regarding higher education. The resolution, sponsored by President-elect Omar Ochoa, is a strong and well-reasoned argument against the elimination of the Perkins Loan program that has this page's endorsement. But, in its current form, the bill does not mention FAFSA's drug question. It should use its newfound interest in federal higher education policy to stand up for those who are hurt most by the Souder amendment: poor and minority students. Repealing the drug provision should not be a controversial or partisan issue. And it has little to do with one's stance on drug policy in general. The law, either as it stands or with Souder's proposed softened language, is unfair to one kind of criminal. And it keeps aid and education out of the hands of those who need it most. A complete repeal is the only acceptable solution to the FAFSA's drug problem. To view the related stories follow the links below. VIEWPOINT: higher education and the drug war, part 1 of 4 VIEWPOINT: hurting those who need help most of all, part 2 of 4 VIEWPOINT: A question of uncertainty, part 3 of 4 - --- MAP posted-by: Beth