GOOD STUDENTS MUSTN'T FACE DOUBLE JEOPARDY

The Higher Education Act of 1965 was intended to broaden access to
college education by providing financial support to eligible
students and institutions. What resulted was our modern
federal financial aid system, which includes all types
of need-based resources such as Pell grants, low-interest loans and
federal work-study. For lower- and middle-class students, these forms
of assistance put a post-secondary education within their reach.

However, when the HEA was reauthorized in 1998, a provision that
directly contradicts the original spirit of the law was adopted. Now
dubbed the Aid Elimination Penalty, the amendment effectively strips
federal financial aid from students convicted of any drug crime -
even simple possession. Admission of a conviction or failure to
answer on the FAFSA automatically renders the student ineligible for
aid, regardless of financial need. To date, approximately $200
million has been withheld from nearly 200,000 students nationwide,
which does not include the unknown number of students who did not
apply for fear of rejection.

Compounding this issue is the administration of state need-based
aid, particularly in states such as Colorado. The Colorado
Commission on Higher Education takes advantage of the federal aid
processing system to determine students' eligibility for state
funding. This translates to automatic ineligibility for students
with drug convictions, despite the fact that Colorado has adopted
no statute to that effect. Nearly 2,500 applicants in Colorado have
been deprived of all need-based aid as a result of this
administrative loophole.

If the argument to preserve financial aid for drug offenders seems
absurd, first, consider a few things. Murderers, rapists, child
molesters, spouse abusers and arsonists are all eligible for federal
and state money for their education if they choose to apply. An
underage college student who drives drunk and kills another driver
does not lose need-based awards. Conversely, a student meeting
federal enrollment and GPA requirements who chooses to use an
illicit drug - something that the current president and vice
president have both admitted to doing in the past - will
lose educational funding if prosecuted.

Ultimately, most people who do not complete a college education are
less productive members of society. A college graduate earns
significantly more money throughout a lifetime, returns more money
to the tax base and is better informed about issues and events than
a non-graduate. Students who are denied aid cannot afford to pay for
their education and many are forced to drop out. While some return
to college, others are kept in lower income brackets, forced into
low-wage jobs, require support from public assistance
programs, and, in the worst cases, fall victim to a lifetime
of substance abuse or addiction.

It is undeniably in the best interest of this country to facilitate
completion of higher education. The impact of the Aid Elimination
Penalty is obvious: We are condemning our most motivated students -
our future - to punishment above and beyond what is already allowed
through the criminal court system. This provision is a blatant
violation of our Constitutional Fifth Amendment right to due
process, not to mention that our economy and global viability are
damaged each time a student is blocked from receiving an education.

Voters and taxpayers must call upon our state legislators and the
Commission on Higher Education demanding that a new system be
adopted for state financial aid processing - one that does not
unfairly target students with drug convictions. We must also call
upon Congress to repeal the Aid Elimination Penalty altogether. More
information on this issue and others is available from Students for
Sensible Drug Policy at CSU by e-mail at ssdpcsu@gmail.com or from
the Coalition for Higher Education Act Reform at www.raiseyourvoice. com.