HAZE SURROUNDS AID FOR DRUG USERS

When Drug Users Lose Federal Funding, Harvard Steps In

High school marijuana users everywhere breathed a heavy, smoke-tinged
sigh of relief this past February 1. On that day, Congress amended
the Higher Education Act (HEA): College students with pre-college
drug offenses would again be eligible for federal financial aid.

But students with offenses during college still forfeit their funds
from the government--and a spate of drug-related incidents earlier
this year at Harvard has raised questions about the inviolability of
financial aid at the College.

Opponents of the federal drug policy want the HEA to be amended further.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), along with the group
Students for Sensible Drug Policy (SSDP), challenged the
constitutionality of the HEA this past March, claiming that the
amended version still offended the Fifth Amendment's double jeopardy
clause by punishing students twice for the same offense.

And College administrators confirmed that Harvard mitigates the
effects of this Aid Elimination Penalty, compensating students for
the loss of federal financial aid, as long as they are not expelled.
Expulsion is a rare event that has occurred less than once a year in
the past decade, and a drug offense has not been the publicly
acknowledged reason for a dismissal in over 10 years.

Although pre-college offenses are not considered in determining
financial aid, they are still taken into account during the
admissions process, according to College administrators.

The debate outside Harvard, however, is one that has been going
on--quietly--in the legislative and legal arenas for some time.

PARTY LIKE IT'S 1998

In 1998, Congress passed the HEA Aid Elimination Penalty, which added
a new question to the Free Application for Federal Student Aid
(FAFSA). Students were asked whether they had "ever been convicted of
possessing or selling illegal drugs." Based on their answers, over
189,065 people have been denied federal financial aid in the past
eight years, according to a report from Students for Sensible Drug
Policy (SSDP), a Washington-based student advocacy organization.

But this number, SSDP claims, does not include what may be a very
large number of students who never attempted to apply for financial
aid because of their drug convictions.

About 2.6 percent of FAFSA applications in the 2000-2001 school year
left the question blank--and had their applications processed
nevertheless due to bureaucratic "confusion and time constraints,"
according to the SSDP report. The Bush administration's Department of
Education (DOE), however, has since refused to process any
applications that fail to answer the question.

DEALING AT HARVARD

Harvard's recent alleged drug offenders, however, won't have to worry
about their aid, even if they are convicted--as long as they are not
expelled, they are eligible for Harvard financial aid, according to
Sally C. Donahue, director of financial aid at the College.

If a student is convicted while at the College, the Administrative
Board makes a decision about his or her enrollment. However, Donahue
says, "as long as they are enrolled, students are eligible to receive
financial aid."

Donahue added that if a Harvard undergraduate were to lose federal
funding, the College would continue "to meet his or her need through
institutional sources," thus replacing the funding that the federal
government previously supplied.Donahue added that, although there is
no clear-cut policy regarding the effect of drug charges on a
student's likelihood of acceptance, all admission applications are
thoroughly scrutinized.

"[They] have to check a box saying [they've] not been disciplined in
school," she said. "[We] ask students who've been suspended to supply
the admissions committee with a description of the circumstances."

Three undergraduates were charged with possession of marijuana with
intent to distribute, and a fourth with only possession, after police
allegedly tracked the scent of marijuana to their DeWolfe dorm room
in January. And two Quincy House students face charges from an
allegedly LSD-related incident this past March.

One undergraduate recently charged with drug possession, who asked
not to be named to avoid greater publicity, said that although he or
she does not receive term-time financial aid, the student was allowed
to keep Harvard funding for an upcoming summer program.

Although none of the six alleged offenders were arrested, the fact
that these busts were made by police will not affect the outcomes of
their disciplinary proceedings.

In terms of "severity of punishment...[it] makes no difference,"
wrote Assistant Dean of the College John L. Ellison, who is also the
secretary of the Ad Board, in an e-mail.

The legal gravity of the drug involved, in addition, will make no
difference--Ellison noted that "the fact that it is a controlled and
illegal substance is all that matters."

TOKE'N EFFECT

The Aid Elimination Penalty's author and primary proponent,
Congressman Mark E. Souder (R-Ind.), told USA Today in 2000 that the
penalty's purpose would be to "deter students from using and selling drugs."

The law has since drawn fire from experts in various fields--mostly
for the inequity of its effects, they say.

"The Higher Education Act is a barrier to education that primarily
punishes working-class Americans," says Adam Wolf, staff attorney for
the ACLU Drug Reform Project.

The ACLU claims that the provision hurts students of lower economic
status, those who would most need federal financial aid. A list of
organizations as diverse as the New York Times Editorial Board, the
American Council on Education, and the Presbyterian Church have
declared their opposition to the penalty.

The law also has an inequitable effect even among convicts, says the ACLU.

"It irrationally subjects only those with drug convictions to this
penalty," says Wolf. "A drug conviction is the only one that can
deprive you of financial aid....You could be convicted of murder and
still receive aid from the government."

The U.S. Governmental Accounting Office released a study in September
2005 that failed to find any evidence that the Aid Elimination
Penalty "actually helped to deter drug use."

The report observed that college graduates "earn nearly twice as much
over a lifetime as those persons who have only a high school
diploma." These findings, along with a "strong consensus among
economists that formal education has a positive impact not only on
personal income but also on society," and the discovery that
undergraduate education means "decreases in crime" and "decreased
dependence upon certain types of public assistance," helped motivate
the 2005 amendment.

But for the College undergraduates still awaiting a conclusion to
their respective trials, the fate of their Harvard careers is still
up in the air--even if their financial aid may not be.