SGA AND STUDENTS FOR A SENSIBLE DRUG POLICY

Two weeks ago the organization Students for a Sensible Drug Policy
(SSDP) petitioned the SGA to endorse a resolution calling for reform
to the Higher Education Act (HEA) of 1998. The resolution focuses on
overturning a "section of the HIgher Education Act of 1998 that denies
or delays access to financial aid based upon convictions for
drug-related offenses." The SGA decided to postpone making any
decision until the March 6 meeting.

The News supports the HEA reform resolution. We challenge the SGA to
follow our lead and act on this issue which affects college students
nationwide. In its current incarnation, the Higher Education Act of
1998 leans toward being excessively punitive.

Similar to so-called "three strikes" legislation, the drug-related
offenses section of the Higher Education Act is based upon the
inaccurate assumption that all drug offenders deserve the same
punishment. Rather than determine specific penalties proportionate to
the severity of the offense, all students with a drug-related
conviction on their record are subject to the same ambiguous penalty:
they are threatened with the loss of federal financial aid for a
period ranging from one year to indefinitely. Therefore, the student
who was caught with a joint behind her parents' garage at the age of
14 and the one whose first offense is trying to smuggle a kilo of
heroin into the country may be equally reprimanded. The operating
philosophy seems to be "a druggie is a druggie is a druggie."

There is another assumption about drug offenders that makes the Higher
Education Act unacceptable as it stands. Like most drug legislation,
it focuses on people of color and of lower economic status--thus
denying the fact that most drug abuse occurs in upper-class white
communities. The people who are most affected by this policy are those
who need the money most--for someone to break the cycle of poverty and
to have equal opportunities, they deserve the option of getting a
college education. Denying them of federal financail aid because of
mistakes they may have made deprives them of this choice.

College students can tell you that drug usage is not the most
prevasive problem. Alcohol abuse and alcohol-related deaths are
becoming normal occurances on college campuses across the country.
However, this provision of the Higher Education Act fails to address
this problem in any form. Altough binge-drinking may not be a common
occurance here, it leads to hundreds of college students developing
alcoholism every year. Focusing solely on illegal drugs blantantly
denies the fact this problem exists.

Mount Holyoke has aready taken a stand against placing ALANA and lower
income students at a disadvantage in its decision to make the SAT
optional. Supporting this resolution to reform what is essentially a
discriminatory act would essentially be an expansion of the college's
efforts to create a level playing field for the women who apply here.

One of the predominant reasons cited for SGA's stalling is that
senators need time to be sure that every student would support the SGA
if it signed its name to the resolution. Surely this defeats the
purpose of representative democracy. Congressmen don't contact every
one of their constituents before voting to be sure they'll approve of
the decisions. When voters elect a person to office, it is because
those voters assume that their candidate is competent to represent
their wants and needs.

The SGA needs to stop stalling, take a stand and make a decision about
the Higher Education Act of 1998 reform resolution. They cannot hide
behind the excuse that college governmant should not address national
issues. This directly impacts the SGA because the act deals expressly
with college students. We hope that they will make the morally
appropriate decision and choose to sign the resolution.