FINANCIAL AID IN DANGER FOR THOSE WITH DRUG CONVICTIONS

Some college students have lost financial aid due to drug convictions. Some
against the policy argue it is ineffective and that students are not
properly made aware of repercussions ahead of time.

Chris Lippke had reviewed the financial aid policy before completing his
FAFSA application for his freshman year.

But when he was charged with a misdemeanor for possession of marijuana in
2003, Lippke was forced to drop all classes and take a year's leave from
school.

"I wasn't fully aware what it all meant," he said. "I'd looked through the
rulebook and was aware of a zero-tolerance policy, but didn't know the fine
print," he said. "The classes were gone, the money for that semester was
gone -- and it all had to come out-of-pocket."

A freshman when convicted, Lippke said he was in the process of recovering
from a shaky first start with his grades.

"I'd gone to Texas State my first semester and in my second was trying to
change things, to make them better. But then I got kicked out of school and
lost tuition money, which made it even worse," he said.

Lippke, jazz studies senior, experienced repercussions of a provision of
the Higher Education Act, which revokes financial aid funding in the event
of a drug conviction. The provision was reformed in 2005 to allow a
time-buffer, which bypasses students with past convictions.

But the law still punishes applicants twice for the same offense and few
students are aware of it, said Tom Angell, Students for a Sensible Drug
Policy campaign manager.

SSDP, a drug policy organization, was established in 1998, the same year
the amendment was enacted. The organization recently filed suit alongside
the American Civil Liberties Union, citing unconstitutionality, claiming
the aid policy is discriminatory and hurts competent students in need.

Angell said ignorance adds to the law's irony.

"Members of congress who support this penalty say it's a deterrent to drug
use," he said. "Yet most college students have no idea the policy exists,
and how can it be an effective deterrent if no one knows about it?"

In addition to being ineffective, Angell said the policy also discriminates
against lower-income families.

"It only affects the students who rely on financial aid; students from rich
families can afford to pay for their own education, as well a good lawyer,"
Angell said. "There's a class element to the impact this law has."

Angell said the policy takes a racial angle.

"It's interesting if you look at the numbers; African-Americans comprise
about 13% of the population (on a college campus). However, if you look at
arrest statistics, African-Americans make up about 55 to 60 percent of
those convicted," he said. "Due to racial profiling, they're being arrested
more than everyone else and as a result losing financial aid at a
disproportionate rate."

Harold Whitis, associate director of financial aid at Texas State, said he
agrees with the policy's less-strict amendment and education itself is what
steers people away from bad behavior.

"I like the way it's been amended to allow the suspension to lapse; part of
financial aid is fostering productive members of society," Whitis said.
"Financial aid is designed to allow students to go to college, become part
of an educated citizenry and engage in the political process of society, so
they don't feel like they have to involve themselves in harmful activities
anymore."

SSDP agrees that schooling creates a healthier, more productive society.

"People are much less likely to commit crimes or rely on costly public
assistant programs if they have a college degree," Angell said.

However, certain people and programs may care about students but still
instruct them to leave campus in the wake of a drug conviction.

Associate Dean of Students Vincent Morton has been at Texas State for 17
years and oversees the department of student justice. Though not directly
affiliated with financial aid, his department may dictate whether a student
is suspended or even expelled for drug-related charges.

The decision must regard the university as a whole, Morton said.

"Not everybody is going to be happy with what we decide, but we have to
make sure this environment is conducive to learning for everybody," he
said. "You have to ask yourself if you want to be in classes or living in a
dorm with people who are obviously getting high."

However, Morton said the students he sees are ultimately responsible.

"They work with you well; what you see, whether it's drugs or anything
else, is people owning up to what they've done," he said.

Morton said the call to actually emancipate a student from campus is never
easy, as it affects students' lives and families and a commitment to Texas
State.

"It's difficult making these decisions, especially when there has to be a
separation from campus. That's someone's kid -- and more so, that's one of
our students. We want to help them, want to work with them, but we can't be
afraid to tell them to leave sometimes," he said.

Morton also supports the provision's less-strict amendment, as it no longer
equals automatic dismissal for everyone.

"That's the good thing about the change in the financial aid policy and
policy overall; it used to be just 'send them home,'" he said. "Now we can
look at it on a case-by-case basis."

But some claim the law is counterproductive, amended or not.

"I haven't seen or heard of drug use being curtailed since the policy has
gone into effect and have yet to see people stop smoking because of it,"
said Keith Vanorstrand, fashion merchandising senior, pointing out that
lack of money actually promotes use and sale of illegal substances. "It's
the underground market for most colleges -- the first thing people think of
to make quick cash."

And it generally affects dedicated students. Good academic standing is a
requirement of financial aid and Angell said true drug abuse often nixes
people on its own.

"Because there is a minimum GPA requirement to receive financial aid, any
student using drugs, not going to class and not doing their homework and
studying is going to lose their financial aid anyway," Angell said. "It
hurts the very people it claims to help and the policy actually causes more
drug abuse by blocking education."