Pubdate: Wed, 12 Apr 2006 Source: Good 5 Cent Cigar (U of RI: Edu) Copyright: 2006 Good 5 Cent Cigar Contact: http://www.ramcigar.com/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/2599 Author: Brenna McCabe Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/decrim.htm (Decrim/Legalization) Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/youth.htm (Youth) ACLU, SSDP FILE LAWSUIT TO REPEAL DRUG POLICY Kraig Selken is a student at Northern State University in South Dakota. Like any typical junior in college, he was excited about the prospect of graduating in June 2007. However, after pleading guilty to a misdemeanor charge for possessing marijuana in October 2000, his dreams of pursuing a career after college are now plagued by a newly-acquired debt. Selkin is one of 200,000 students who have been denied further financial aid by universities in light of minor drug convictions because of federal law. Now the American Civil Liberties Union and Students for Sensible Drug Policy have filed a joint class-action lawsuit against the United States Department of Education in order to amend Section 484 of the Higher Education Act. Selken is one of three individually named plaintiffs. The law, drawn up by Rep. Mark Souder (R - Ind.) in 1998, states that any student who is currently receiving federal financial aid for a university or college may not receive further aid upon notice of any drug conviction. "We've been trying to repeal this law ever since it was passed in 1998," said SSDP Campaigns Director and University of Rhode Island alumnus Tom Angell. "This has been our primary campaign for the last eight years," he said. The SSDP has had some success so far, convincing legislators to partially reform the law so that only students who were convicted while enrolled can be denied aid, as opposed to students who had drug convictions on their records before the law went into full effect in 2000. SSDP is now involved in a battle with the U.S. Department of Education to get a full repeal of the law. Angell added later, "The important thing here is that we are able to get students' tuition back. No student will ever have to worry about losing financial aid for minor drug convictions." The act itself, issued in 1965, was reauthorized eight years ago with certain amendments made to accommodate the U.S. government's intentions to fight the "War on Drugs" while also improving financial aid programs for taxpayers and students. Recently, legislators voted "to temporarily extend the programs under the Higher Education Act of 1965." "Through our efforts, we have reduced lender subsidies, increased loan limits for students, simplified the financial aid process and provided additional resources for needy students studying math, science and critical foreign languages in college," said California Representative Howard McKeon during his recent floor speech regarding the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act in the U.S. House of Representatives. "All the while, we have made certain that student aid programs operate more efficiently, saving U.S. taxpayers billions as part of this Congress' goal to rein in runaway entitlement spending." Support for the law has been strong in Congress. However, there is an ever-growing opposition-more than 250 organizations and 115 student governments nationwide actively support a full repeal. "The case is a class action lawsuit. We have some individual plaintiffs but they really represent an entire class," said attorney Allen Hopper, one of several lawyers representing the plaintiffs of the case. "This law is really a barrier to education," he said. "We know the law is ineffective a€| just the studies show that in order to be affective [in the war on drugs] we should be keeping kids in school and not kicking them out." The ACLU and the SSDP argue the law is unconstitutional because it goes against the "double jeopardy" and the "due process" clauses as stated in the Fifth Amendment. They also argue that the law mainly targets students from lower and middle class families, as well as minorities. "Many of our nation's leaders a€| have admitted to past drug use while in college," Angell said. "They didn't get caught for it, but even if they did get caught, they didn't have to worry about not being able to pay tuition a€| they are all from well-to-do families." The SSDP also had recent success in another case, involving the collection of records, against the Board of Education. The records contained information about percentages of students who were affected by the law. The case was quickly dropped after controversy concerning the release of the records. "We wanted a state-by-state breakdown of how many students were being affected by the law from different areas," Angell said. "They said we couldn't get the information for free because it might lead to drug legalization and somehow, our nonprofit organization could profit from [being given the records]." The Department of Education was going to charge the SSDP a $4,100 fine to access the records. The SSDP argued that under the Freedom of Information Act, it was unlawful for them to deny access to the records. Instead of meeting the SSDP in court, they decided to release the information. Members of the Coalition for Higher Education Act Reform, a group made up of education, health, civil rights, religious groups and others, developed an official report using the information that was released. Entitled "Falling Through the Cracks: Loss of State-Based Financial Aid Eligibility for Students Affected by the Federal Higher Education Act Drug Provision," the report provides a full read-through of state reform efforts, along with detailed explanations of the current standings of each state and sample legislation. According to this report, a common misconception among students applying for financial aid and even some financial aid departments is the fact that ineligibility is permanent after one offense. However, the law clearly states that only after a third time of being caught in possession of an illegal substance or a second offense involving the actual sale of an illegal substance will ineligibility become indefinite. In Rhode Island, the Higher Education Assistance Authority strictly adheres to these federal rulings. Some other states have made adaptations, such as allowing individual schools the choice of denying students financial aid. Micah Daigle, a URI student who serves on the Board of Directors for the SSDP and also heads the URI chapter, expressed his enthusiasm for change in Rhode Island. "President [Robert L.] Carothers has spoken out against the provision at press conferences we have organized around this issue, and it looks like our efforts have contributed to the national backlash," he said. CHEAR is currently working with the ACLU and the SSDP in trying to target legislators from 11 different states, including Massachusetts and Rhode Island. The SSDP is also looking for students who have been directly affected by the law and want to partake in the lawsuit. "We are trying to raise awareness," Daigle said, "but what we're really looking for are plaintiffs." The government has yet to respond to the joint claim. "These things tend to move forward quite slowly," Angell said. - --- MAP posted-by: Beth Wehrman