JUDGE UPHOLDS AID PULL FOR DRUG CONVICTIONS

Court Rules Federal Financial Aid Revocation for Illegal Drug
Possession Is Not Unconstitutional.

Last month, a federal judge dismissed a lawsuit challenging the
constitutionality of a drug provision that prevents students from
receiving federal aid if convicted of drug offenses while enrolled in college.

In the lawsuit, Students for Sensible Drug Policy and the American
Civil Liberties Union claimed that a provision in the Higher
Education Act violated the Fifth Amendment on two charges. By
singling out individuals convicted of drug charges, the government
was denying due process, they said.

In addition, by punishing students legally and taking away their aid
for the same crime, the Higher Education Act provision resulted in
double jeopardy, the lawsuit stated.

"The mere fact that the classification itself results in some
inequality or unfairness does not, in and of itself, offend the
Constitution," U.S. District Court Judge Charles B. Kornmann stated
in his ruling. "The Constitution affords no right to a higher
education. .. Likewise, there is no fundamental right to the receipt
of federal student financial aid."

According to Kornmann, Congress had a "rational basis" for passing
the law, despite allegations of due process denial. The U.S.
Department of Education's goal was that the law would be responsible
for decreasing the amount of drug offenses on college campuses and
preventing citizens from paying federal taxes supporting illegal
conduct. For that reason, Kornmann said he was convinced that the law
was worthy of being legitimately pursued by the government.

Kornmann also dismissed the accusation of double jeopardy; the law,
he said, was not intended to punish students on a legal basis for
drug crimes, but rather to encourage them to discontinue drug use and
undergo rehabilitation.

Despite the issue of the Higher Education Act's constitutionality,
members of SSDP are dissatisfied with the law and would like to
abolish it. Congress amended the Higher Education Act in 1988 to deny
federal student aid to first-time drug offenders for one year, two
years for those convicted a second time and permanently for those who
are convicted a third time. Last January, the law was changed again
so that only students who are convicted of drug offenses while
enrolled in a university and receiving financial aid could be subject
to its consequences.

"We are outraged with the judge's ruling [and] disagree with his
reasoning," SSDP Campaign Director Tom Angell said. "It is completely
irrational to attempt to reduce drug abuse by kicking students out of
school. This law should [be] erased from the books altogether.
Otherwise eligible students should not have their financial aid
stripped from them because of minor drug convictions."

Another problem with the provision, according to the plaintiffs, is
that it targets only one aspect of crime.

"It is true as pointed out by the plaintiffs," Kornmann said, "that
students convicted of possessing small amounts of marijuana may be
prevented from receiving federal student financial aid while those
students convicted of serious sexual or violent crimes would not
suffer a similar fate."

Nonetheless, the U.S. Department of Education stands by Kornmann's ruling.

"Department officials are gratified by the court's decision and will
continue to carry out the law," department spokeswoman Stephanie Baybak said.

UCSD Director of Student Policies and Judicial Affairs Anthony
Valladolid was unable to disclose whether any UCSD students were
directly impacted by the Higher Education Act.

"Given that drug convictions are required to be disclosed on [Free
Application for Student Aid] applications, I can assume some of our
students are affected," he said. "I do not have specific information
as it is protected by [Family Education Rights and Privacy Act] and
not publicly disclosed."