Privacy Policy
Thursday, October 20, 2005

Up in smoke

Drug convictions cost students their federal aid

by Allison Rakes, contributing writer

A controversial provision added to the Higher Education Act in 1998, which blocks federal aid to students convicted of drug use, is up for reauthorization this year by Congress.

Mark Souder, R-Ind., wrote the provision to “deter students from using and selling drugs,” but critics like Tom Angell, campaigns director of Students for Sensible Drug Policy, said this provision would be punishing students with drug convictions twice for the same crime.

“Drug crimes are the only infractions that students lose aid for — murderers and rapists are still eligible,” he said.

The Higher Education Act was established in 1965 by President Lyndon Johnson to make higher education more affordable and accessible to middle-income Americans.

“The act does the opposite and actually makes higher education less accessible,” Angell said. “Over the past seven years, more than 175,000 students have lost their financial aid because of the HEA Drug Provision.”

Sue Thau, a public policy consultant to Community Anti-Drug Coalition of America strongly supports the bill. In a 2004 interview, she told The Chicago Tribune “By the time you’re in college, you’re old enough to know that your actions have consequences.”

On the Free Application for Federal Student Aid, students are asked if they have ever been convicted of  “possessing or selling illegal drugs.” With no exception, they are blocked eligibility for aid for a certain amount of time if it is revealed they have been convicted of a drug-related crime.

If a student has been convicted of a drug-related offence, on their first offense their ineligibility period for aid is one year. The second offense causes an ineligibility period of two years. A third offense causes the period to be indefinite. The sale of a controlled substance on a first offense is two years ineligibility and a second offense is indefinite.

Angell believes the current provision is ineffective. First, he points out that college graduates bring more money into the nation’s economy. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, college graduates earn 62 percent more each year and $1 million more over lifetimes than people with only high-school diplomas. Also, college graduates pay twice as much federal income tax than high-school graduates.

Second, in a study conducted by the Government Accountability Office, it concludes that the provision is ineffective in deterring drug use. The study also found that college education leads to “decreases in crime.”
- Email this article
Search:
-Order Photos from current issue
-Photo Album Archives
Top Stories

- Up in smoke. Drug convictions cost students their federal aid
- Senate supports reading holiday
- Program offers chance for students to help lower-income children
- JMUbilee, round two