As more and more college students nationwide feel the heat from the Higher Education Act’s drug provision, which denies financial aid to students with drug convictions, many universities have united in a fiery battle against the law.
The ASUO Executive is currently considering joining the effort of student governments across the country, and it may soon sign a resolution speaking out against the law — in the hope that the law will be repealed.”I think it’s the job of all student governments to make it easier to go to school and not harder,” ASUO President Jay Breslow said. “Everyone’s allowed to make mistakes. Those who make mistakes and have a tougher life are the ones who need access to this money.”
Breslow said the executive is waiting for the Student Senate to decide whether it wants to support the resolution, too. The executive will decide its course of action after hearing from the senate.
In a Jan. 10 USA Today news article, the Department of Education reported that nearly 8,000 of the more than 9 million people who submitted a 2000-01 Free Application for Federal Student Aid failed or lost partial eligibility because of the drug provision, which passed in 1998 but was only recently enforced.
Roughly another 810,000 applicants left the drug question on the FAFSA blank, and their aid is also in jeopardy until they send the Department of Education notices that say they have not had a conviction.
Rep. Mark Souder, R-Ind., initiated the law with the hope of deterring students from using drugs, identifying abusers who need treatment and holding students responsible for taxpayers’ money.
But critics have said the rule unjustly targets lower-income students — by penalizing them twice, first with the drug conviction and second with the loss of aid — and minorities, who studies show are disproportionately convicted of drug crimes.
The law has been the motivation for universities joining Students for a Sensible Drug Policy. In the last few years, the group’s membership has jumped from two to about 80 chapters across the nation. SSDP aims to fight civil injustices that it says arise from the country’s war on drugs.
Shawn Heller, national president for SSDP, said the law is unfair not only because it punishes students in addition to fines they incur, but also because only poor students — who need the aid for college — lose an opportunity at an education.
“If wealthy people who don’t need aid get a drug conviction, they won’t lose money for their education,” he said.
Marisa Garcia, a student at California State University in Fullerton, knows how damaging the loss of aid can be when someone is not in the wealthy class.
After police found a pipe with traces of marijuana in her car, Garcia not only paid a $415 fine, but the amount of financial aid she received dropped. As a child of a single mother with more than one child in college, the drop proved devastating, she said. The sophomore sociology major had to work longer hours at a floral shop while taking classes at the same time to compensate for the loss.
“It was really hard,” she said. “My mother thought I might have to drop out … I didn’t know what I was going to have to do.”
David Borden, executive director for the Drug Reform Coordination Network, added that the provision only addresses drug crimes.
“You can kill or rape someone and still receive financial aid,” he said. “That may be the most absurd part about this.”
Angela Flood, chief of staff for Rep. Souder, said that if members of Congress want to add other crimes to the provision they can. But Souder is primarily concerned with drugs because he is the chairman of the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources.
One of the largest complaints about the law is a concern for its potential for racial discrimination. While only 13 percent of the population is black, almost 55 percent of drug convictions include blacks, according to the Office of National Drug Policy. Borden said this disparity proves racial profiling is still a large problem. He added that the drug provision pushes this discrimination onto the education system.
Flood pointed out that the provision does not mean anyone convicted of a drug felony automatically loses all federal funding. Depending on the offense, funding can be partially decreased, and those who lose all their aid can regain eligibility by getting drug abuse treatment.
“If you’re committed to your education, you’ll get back on track as quickly as possible to regain eligibility,” she said.
But Borden said this part of the provision is not sensible because people who need money for aid probably cannot afford treatment and most likely do not have a drug problem anyway.
“A lot of people with drug convictions don’t have drug problems,” he said. “This just takes up treatment lots that are already scarce.”
Flood mentioned that Souder has traveled to many countries, especially in South America, trying to help stop the flow of drugs to the United States. On his visits, he has been told many times that there would not be such a supply unless there was a high demand.
Flood said that Souder introduced the provision as a way to help stop drug use, especially among college students who experiment with drugs and think it is OK. She added that students on aid are using taxpayers’ money and should be held accountable.
“This directly challenges drug use as a common practice,” she said. “And if you know you’re going to lose aid, you hopefully won’t do drugs.”
But Heller argued that the drug provision is ultimately unfair and won’t stop students from using drugs. Rather, it will worsen the situation.
“The heightening of the war on drugs has gotten the attention of students,” he said. “Now it’s serving as a roadblock to education, which we view as the solution to so many social problems.”