Pubdate: Wed, 27 Sep 2006
Source: State Hornet, The (CA State, Sacramento, Edu)
Copyright: 2006 State Hornet
Contact:  http://www.statehornet.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/1400
Author: Vinnie Gesuele, The State Hornet

SOUDER AMENDMENT COULD USE ADJUSTING

Next time you pick up that joint or get ready to snort a line, think 
twice if you are currently receiving financial aid. The federal 
government is waiting for you to get caught so it can take away your education.

If you're a sex offender or have been convicted of murder, relax 
while the government pays for your education while you stalk your next victim.

Maybe it's not as drastic as that, but to deny financial aid to 
students who are convicted of possession or use of something as minor 
as marijuana is ridiculous. Allowing alcohol offenders and former 
rapists to continue their education on the government makes no sense 
whatsoever.

I am in no way condoning the use of marijuana or other recreational 
drugs, but moderate use of these drugs should not constitute a ban of 
financial aid.

These punishments have been in place since 1998 when the Higher 
Education Act added the Souder Amendment. The amendment takes 
financial aid money away from students convicted of use or possession 
of drugs while attending school.

According to www.raiseyourvoice.com, over 200,000 students have had 
some, if not all, of their financial aid revoked, while 180,000 were 
denied during the application process.

There has been some talk of amending the act again and here are some 
suggestions:

First, let's get rid of the ban for drug-only offenses. Change the 
act to take away financial aid from students convicted of a felony. 
This would include any felony, not just drug-related convictions.

This eliminates the chances of prowling sexual predators being paid 
to go to school. It also lessons the chances of a student who 
indulged in a drug for the first time from losing the opportunity to 
continue his or her education.

This is very important because the last thing an education act should 
do is prevent people from getting an education. In some cases, 
students had college taken away from them and as a result, returned 
to drugs and other criminal activities. This would be less likely to 
happen if aid is pulled from felons only.

Next, the punishment for the offenses needs to be changed. As the act 
stands now, the initial punishment for an offense is a one-year 
ineligibility period. The second offense is a two-year ineligibility 
period, while the third offense calls for an indefinite ban.

That is fine for the way the act is now, but it allows people to 
screw up three times before they completely lose their financial aid. 
A stricter policy of a one-time offense leading to an indefinite ban 
would make the instances less likely to happen. This, of course, 
needs to be coupled with the suggestion of only felony offenses 
leading to punishment.

The final suggestion is to clarify whether or not previous offenses 
can be used. The act was changed in January to count only offenses 
which occur while a student is in school and is already receiving funds.

Another provision awards students who complete drug rehabilitation by 
reinstating their financial aid.

No matter what happens, it needs to be consistent with school 
policies. If a student is caught on campus with a large amount of 
drugs, he or she is likely to be kicked out of school. If the offense 
is a felony, then the student would also lose his or her financial aid.

However, if a student is caught smoking marijuana, he or she will 
have to deal with the law and school's punishment, but would not lose 
his or her financial aid.

Sure, there are people who are going to say that students should be 
punished for their actions. I am a firm believer in facing the 
consequences of your actions, but there is no reason a student should 
be punished three times for such a small crime.

The way the act is now is not fair and will do nothing but deter 
people from getting an education.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Elaine