SOUDER AMENDMENT COULD USE ADJUSTING

Next time you pick up that joint or get ready to snort a line, think
twice if you are currently receiving financial aid. The federal
government is waiting for you to get caught so it can take away your education.

If you're a sex offender or have been convicted of murder, relax
while the government pays for your education while you stalk your next victim.

Maybe it's not as drastic as that, but to deny financial aid to
students who are convicted of possession or use of something as minor
as marijuana is ridiculous. Allowing alcohol offenders and former
rapists to continue their education on the government makes no sense
whatsoever.

I am in no way condoning the use of marijuana or other recreational
drugs, but moderate use of these drugs should not constitute a ban of
financial aid.

These punishments have been in place since 1998 when the Higher
Education Act added the Souder Amendment. The amendment takes
financial aid money away from students convicted of use or possession
of drugs while attending school.

According to www.raiseyourvoice.com, over 200,000 students have had
some, if not all, of their financial aid revoked, while 180,000 were
denied during the application process.

There has been some talk of amending the act again and here are some
suggestions:

First, let's get rid of the ban for drug-only offenses. Change the
act to take away financial aid from students convicted of a felony.
This would include any felony, not just drug-related convictions.

This eliminates the chances of prowling sexual predators being paid
to go to school. It also lessons the chances of a student who
indulged in a drug for the first time from losing the opportunity to
continue his or her education.

This is very important because the last thing an education act should
do is prevent people from getting an education. In some cases,
students had college taken away from them and as a result, returned
to drugs and other criminal activities. This would be less likely to
happen if aid is pulled from felons only.

Next, the punishment for the offenses needs to be changed. As the act
stands now, the initial punishment for an offense is a one-year
ineligibility period. The second offense is a two-year ineligibility
period, while the third offense calls for an indefinite ban.

That is fine for the way the act is now, but it allows people to
screw up three times before they completely lose their financial aid.
A stricter policy of a one-time offense leading to an indefinite ban
would make the instances less likely to happen. This, of course,
needs to be coupled with the suggestion of only felony offenses
leading to punishment.

The final suggestion is to clarify whether or not previous offenses
can be used. The act was changed in January to count only offenses
which occur while a student is in school and is already receiving funds.

Another provision awards students who complete drug rehabilitation by
reinstating their financial aid.

No matter what happens, it needs to be consistent with school
policies. If a student is caught on campus with a large amount of
drugs, he or she is likely to be kicked out of school. If the offense
is a felony, then the student would also lose his or her financial aid.

However, if a student is caught smoking marijuana, he or she will
have to deal with the law and school's punishment, but would not lose
his or her financial aid.

Sure, there are people who are going to say that students should be
punished for their actions. I am a firm believer in facing the
consequences of your actions, but there is no reason a student should
be punished three times for such a small crime.

The way the act is now is not fair and will do nothing but deter
people from getting an education.