DRUGS WON'T PAY

It used to be that only those who could afford a college education received
one. Now, more Americans than ever have college degrees, indeed, a college
diploma is almost a prerequisite for success in life. Opportunities to
receive financial aid have expanded; most people on these Grounds know
someone who has a loan or a grant. Financial aid, however, does not grow on
trees. Until approved FAFSAs start to bloom on McCormick Road gingkos, or
more money is invested in grants and loans, a government-subsidized
education will remain a privilege, not a right.

The Drug Reform Coordination Network hopes you disagree. The non-profit
group is coordinating what they bill as a "national student-led campaign to
raise awareness and opposition" to a provision in the Higher Education Act
of 1998. The provision (Section 483, subsection 'F') denies federal
financial aid to any student "who has been convicted of any offense under
any Federal or State law involving the possession or sale of a controlled
substance." The ineligibility period for a convicted possession starts at
one year for the first offense. A conviction for the sale of a controlled
substance carries a two-year ineligibility for the first offense.

Under the provision, federal financial aid applications ask applicants
whether they have ever been convicted of a drug offense. Before the Act's
passage in October, the only questions dealing with a criminal record
involved incarceration.

In opposition to the provision, DRCNet raises the question: Should drug use
be a consideration in financial aid applications where convictions for
crimes such as rape are not considered? But this disparity argues for the
punishment of convictions such as rape through financial aid applications,
rather than for the overturning of the HEA provision.

The overturning of this provision would be a disservice to higher
education. If the government subsidizes or fully funds a drug user's
education, and that student uses personal funds to support his drug use,
the government is, in effect, subsidizing the drug use.

Also, because financial aid is limited, every person who receives a loan or
grant does so at the expense of someone who was denied aid. With so many
people looking for the means to attend college, it is only fair that those
who have stayed clean are awarded aid over those who have not. It is true
that such a policy might result in the denial of aid to a few people who
are truly trying to turn their lives around, but that does not justify
withholding aid from those who have committed no crimes.

And the ineligibility periods are not set in stone. The provision includes
a clause on rehabilitation. Under this provision, a student may regain
eligibility before the end of the period provided that he completes a drug
rehabilitation program.

Keeping these in mind, we find that we cannot condone financial aid for
active drug users.

With that said, the wording of the provision could prove troublesome. The
first clause states that eligibility suspension will affect any "student
who has been convicted ... ." This leads the reader to believe that any
student who has, in the past, been convicted of a drug offense could lose
financial aid.

Punitive measures should not extend to offenses committed years before the
offender applies to college. Other than that, the provision is justifiable
and necessary.