Anyone with a prior drug conviction will discover it’s nearly impossible to obtain financial aid from the federal government, even if the conviction occurred long ago and the person has since turned his or her life around. But withholding aid from students who have had prior drug convictions is pointless and unfair — no one should be denied access to higher education.
Groups in Oregon and California are now rallying for the repeal of the Higher Education Act’s drug provision, and the protest — one of the most important concerns on campus — affects many students.
The provision potentially bars students who answer “yes” to question 35 on the Free Application for Federal Student Aid, which asks if the applicant has been convicted of a drug offense — students can lose aid even if they just leave the question blank. In 1998, a new provision to the Higher Education Act implemented the clause requiring the drug conviction question be placed on the FAFSA form.
Why withhold financial aid from students who may need it the most? Whether one has sympathy for past drug offenders or not, it is counterproductive to punish them twice — by convicting them of the original crime, and then by taking away what could be their only means of attending college. Higher education is an excellent way for these students to improve their lives and make better choices. Barring past drug offenders from school will only hinder this process, decreasing the likelihood that they will continue their education.
Many protesters contend the provision targets minority students, since studies show more than half of those convicted of drug violations are minorities. Recent American Civil Liberties Union statistics show that black people make up 12 percent of the population and 13 percent of drug offenders, but represent more than 70 percent of incarcerations for drug possession.
The Higher Education Act drug provision should be repealed. The judicial system punishes drug violators once. Punishing them a second time won’t benefit anyone. Furthermore, FAFSA only denies aid to those convicted of drug offenses and not other crimes. If it’s acceptable for the government to deny people access to education based on their pasts, why just bar people with drug convictions? Why not shoplifting arrests or speeding tickets or violent crimes? How do they make any more sense than prior drug convictions?
It’s estimated that up to 60,000 students were denied financial aid this year because of prior drug convictions. For these people, obtaining financial aid might make the difference between a future of possibilities or a future of crime and poverty. The government should consider this reality when deciding whom they will exclude from access to higher education.