HURTING, NOT HELPING

Losing Financial Aid For A Drug Offense Is Not Only Unfair -- It's Illogical

In America today, robbing a bank will get you thrown in jail. So
will committing a sexual assault. And murdering someone may result
in even harsher punishment. But none of those crimes will cause you
to become ineligible for financial aid.

That only happens if you are convicted of a drug offense.

In 1998, Congress modified the Higher Education Act to prevent
students who had been convicted of drug offenses from receiving
financial aid. The rule change has resulted in about 175,000
disqualified applications, according to Department of Education
data. And that doesn't even include the likely hundreds of thousands
of additional applicants who decided not to apply for financial aid
because they knew in advance they wouldn't qualify.

Convicted drug offenders should surely be punished for their crimes
- -- but don't forget, they're already being punished. These students
are already serving whatever punishment the courts have deemed
appropriate, which is why the American Civil Liberties Union and
Students for a Sensible Drug Policy are suing the federal government
over the issue. They claim the policy violates the Constitution,
specifically the Fifth Amendment, which prohibits citizens from
being punished for the same offense twice. The groups say this
policy clearly violates that clause.

More importantly, the Higher Education Act's drug component is
simply bad policy.

The government is already punishing drug offenders; why then strip
them of an opportunity to better themselves? Post-secondary
education is supposed to offer students a chance to foster their
intellectual development and open doors to future success, but this
policy only unnecessarily closes doors.

The government should be doing what it can to help young people
convicted of a drug offense. Stripping these students of their
financial aid -- and therefore their ability to pay for college --
only makes it more likely that these students will commit more crimes.

The policy also unfairly singles out drug offenders; not a single
other criminal act disqualifies students for financial aid. What
makes a drug offender worse than a rapist or bank robber? Moreover,
what in the world could make a drug offender less qualified to
receive financial aid than a convicted murderer?

The policy makes no sense, and Congress knows it.

"It's become increasingly apparent that the law has become
unpopular," said Kris Krane, executive director of Students for a
Sensible Drug Policy.

Just this year, the original author of the bill, Rep. Mark Souder
(R-Ind.) toned down the policy so that only students convicted of
drug offenses while already receiving financial aid would be
disqualified. But the action, likely designed to save the policy
from complete elimination, just doesn't cut it -- the policy must be
eliminated completely.

University President Amy Gutmann should be among those leading the
charge -- and she has the influence to boot, having just dined with
President Bush at the White House. Students, as well, should work
hard to make this a campaign issue in the fall and should only vote
for candidates who support a more sensible drug policy.

By cutting off financial aid to drug offenders, Congress is
preventing those who need help the most from receiving it. Give
these students the financial aid they rightfully earned to keep
their lives moving forward.

The government doesn't need to cut off funding to teach these
students a lesson -- that's what college is for.