Pubdate: Tue, 04 Apr 2006
Source: Northern Light (U of AK, Anchorage, Edu)
Contact:  2006 The Northern Light
Website: http://www.thenorthernlight.org
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/4128
Author: Kyle von Bose
Cited: Students for Sensible Drug Policy http://www.daregeneration.com
Cited: American Civil Liberties Union http://www.aclu.org/drugpolicy/
Cited: Free Application for Federal Student Aid http://www.fafsa.ed.gov/
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/hea.htm (Higher Education Act)
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/people/Mark+Souder

ACLU DEFENDS STUDENT DRUG OFFENDERS

If a recent lawsuit filed on behalf of a student organization proves 
successful, college students who have been denied federal student aid 
because of drug convictions may be entitled to once again receive 
government aid.

On March 29 the American Civil Liberties Union filed a case in a 
South Dakota federal court on behalf of the organization Students for 
Sensible Drug Policy, which is seeking to repeal a drug amendment to 
the Higher Education Act. The amendment, sponsored in 1998 by Rep. 
Mark Souder, R-Ind., denies federal student aid such as Stafford 
Loans and Pell Grants to students with drug convictions.

The SSDP claims that education penalties against students convicted 
of drug charges are unconstitutional because they punish a person 
twice for the same infraction, which SSDP says is a violation of the 
double jeopardy clause of the U.S. Constitution's Fifth Amendment. 
The organization says that because convicted drug offenders have 
already been dealt with by the criminal justice system, they have 
already paid their debt to society. Furthermore, the SSDP says that 
putting up roadblocks between people with troubled pasts and an 
education does nothing to solve our nation's drug and crime problems. 
They say students who shy away from higher education because of past 
drug charges are more likely to fall into drug abuse or commit 
crimes, rather than become productive members of society.

Keri Meagher, a pre-med student at UAA, thinks that no matter how 
many drug offenses a person has, they should not be denied a chance 
to get an education.

"Many nontraditional students who try to go back to school are easily 
discouraged by any kind of setback, whether it's past poor academics 
or a minor drug conviction," Meagher said.

Jason Wilson, a senior economics major at UAA, also agrees with the 
SSDP and ACLU's case.

"I think it's ridiculous that they won't allow students to have 
student aid if they have drug convictions. Because, one-- so many 
people do drugs. It's part of being a youth in America," Wilson said. 
"Trying to legislate morality by limiting someone's future is a very 
foolish thing, it could weed out people that might possibly be the 
best and the brightest."

Supporters of the 1998 amendment say that the limited supply of 
federal aid money should not be available to students who use drugs.

David Glaser and Brittany Cottrel, both sophomores majoring in 
mechanical engineering, thought that while people who may have one 
drug conviction should not be denied opportunities for education, 
students who are repeat offenders shouldn't be eligible for federal 
student aid.

"Being someone who has never used drugs, if (drug offenders) are 
denied, it's easier for me to get aid," Glaser said.

Debbie Mattson, a criminal justice major at UAA, said denying a 
student drug offender financial aid isn't a bad thing, because there 
are many students without drug convictions who also need federal student aid.

"I think that if going to college is something a person really wants 
to do, just like any student, they will overcome whatever hurdles 
they have to," Mattson said.

The Department of Education says that 200,000 students each year 
refrain from answering the drug conviction question included in the 
Free Application for Federal Student Aid. The Department of Education 
has acknowledged that they do not independently verify the truth of 
those who leave the question blank. So those who leave the question 
unanswered are much more likely to receive aid than those who admit 
to their crime. In 2000, less than 1 percent of the 1.7 million 
students who applied for federal aid admitted to a drug conviction.

According to the Government Accountability Office, during the 2001-02 
to 2002-03 academic years, more than $50 million in Pell Grants and 
between $100 million and $150 million in Stafford Loans were denied 
to students because of drug convictions. The GAO report estimates 
that the number of students affected may be higher, accounting for 
students who didn't bother to apply for aid, assuming they would be denied.

The drug amendment of the Higher Education Act is a "three strikes 
you're out" policy. Students who are found guilty of one charge are 
ineligible to receive federal aid for one year. Students found guilty 
of a second drug conviction will be denied aid for two years, and 
students with a third charge are disqualified indefinitely or until 
the charges are removed from their record.

In addition, students found guilty of selling drugs immediately 
receive the two-year ban. If caught selling drugs again they will 
also receive the indefinite ban.

As harsh as the penalties seem, there are ways for students who 
attend drug rehabilitation to once again become eligible for federal 
aid. According to the FASFA Web site, students who attend a drug 
rehabilitation program that includes two unannounced drug tests and 
is administered or recognized by a federal, state, or local 
government agency may receive federal student aid.

Allan Barnes, a professor of criminology at UAA, said that his 
personal opinion is that the drug amendment should be overturned.

"Young people are going to make stupid mistakes, whether it's hanging 
out with bad influences, driving too fast, or experiment with drugs," 
Barnes said. "Young people should not be denied opportunities for 
education based on stupid, young people making stupid, young mistakes."

However, he said in a federal court of law, the main issue will be 
whether or not the drug amendment actually violates the double 
jeopardy clause. While the moral issues such as the repercussions of 
denying people an education may sway the judges to re-evaluate the 
amendment, it comes down to how the judge interprets the 
constitution. Barnes perceives that the outcome of the case could go 
either way but thinks if nothing else, the ACLU is at least making 
people aware of the problem.

For more information or to sign up as a plaintiff in this case, 
e-mail  or call 202-293-4414. 
- ---
MAP posted-by: Richard Lake