ACLU, SSDP FILE LAWSUIT TO REPEAL DRUG POLICY

Kraig Selken is a student at Northern State University in South
Dakota. Like any typical junior in college, he was excited about the
prospect of graduating in June 2007. However, after pleading guilty
to a misdemeanor charge for possessing marijuana in October 2000, his
dreams of pursuing a career after college are now plagued by a
newly-acquired debt.

Selkin is one of 200,000 students who have been denied further
financial aid by universities in light of minor drug convictions
because of federal law. Now the American Civil Liberties Union and
Students for Sensible Drug Policy have filed a joint class-action
lawsuit against the United States Department of Education in order to
amend Section 484 of the Higher Education Act. Selken is one of three
individually named plaintiffs.

The law, drawn up by Rep. Mark Souder (R - Ind.) in 1998, states that
any student who is currently receiving federal financial aid for a
university or college may not receive further aid upon notice of any
drug conviction.

"We've been trying to repeal this law ever since it was passed in
1998," said SSDP Campaigns Director and University of Rhode Island
alumnus Tom Angell.

"This has been our primary campaign for the last eight years," he said.

The SSDP has had some success so far, convincing legislators to
partially reform the law so that only students who were convicted
while enrolled can be denied aid, as opposed to students who had drug
convictions on their records before the law went into full effect in
2000. SSDP is now involved in a battle with the U.S. Department of
Education to get a full repeal of the law.

Angell added later, "The important thing here is that we are able to
get students' tuition back. No student will ever have to worry about
losing financial aid for minor drug convictions."

The act itself, issued in 1965, was reauthorized eight years ago with
certain amendments made to accommodate the U.S. government's
intentions to fight the "War on Drugs" while also improving financial
aid programs for taxpayers and students. Recently, legislators voted
"to temporarily extend the programs under the Higher Education Act of 1965."

"Through our efforts, we have reduced lender subsidies, increased
loan limits for students, simplified the financial aid process and
provided additional resources for needy students studying math,
science and critical foreign languages in college," said California
Representative Howard McKeon during his recent floor speech regarding
the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act in the U.S. House of
Representatives. "All the while, we have made certain that student
aid programs operate more efficiently, saving U.S. taxpayers billions
as part of this Congress' goal to rein in runaway entitlement spending."

Support for the law has been strong in Congress. However, there is an
ever-growing opposition-more than 250 organizations and 115 student
governments nationwide actively support a full repeal.

"The case is a class action lawsuit. We have some individual
plaintiffs but they really represent an entire class," said attorney
Allen Hopper, one of several lawyers representing the plaintiffs of the case.

"This law is really a barrier to education," he said. "We know the
law is ineffective a€| just the studies show that in order to be
affective [in the war on drugs] we should be keeping kids in school
and not kicking them out."

The ACLU and the SSDP argue the law is unconstitutional because it
goes against the "double jeopardy" and the "due process" clauses as
stated in the Fifth Amendment. They also argue that the law mainly
targets students from lower and middle class families, as well as minorities.

"Many of our nation's leaders a€| have admitted to past drug use
while in college," Angell said. "They didn't get caught for it, but
even if they did get caught, they didn't have to worry about not
being able to pay tuition a€| they are all from well-to-do families."

The SSDP also had recent success in another case, involving the
collection of records, against the Board of Education. The records
contained information about percentages of students who were affected
by the law. The case was quickly dropped after controversy concerning
the release of the records.

"We wanted a state-by-state breakdown of how many students were being
affected by the law from different areas," Angell said. "They said we
couldn't get the information for free because it might lead to drug
legalization and somehow, our nonprofit organization could profit
from [being given the records]."

The Department of Education was going to charge the SSDP a $4,100
fine to access the records. The SSDP argued that under the Freedom of
Information Act, it was unlawful for them to deny access to the
records. Instead of meeting the SSDP in court, they decided to
release the information.

Members of the Coalition for Higher Education Act Reform, a group
made up of education, health, civil rights, religious groups and
others, developed an official report using the information that was
released. Entitled "Falling Through the Cracks: Loss of State-Based
Financial Aid Eligibility for Students Affected by the Federal Higher
Education Act Drug Provision," the report provides a full
read-through of state reform efforts, along with detailed
explanations of the current standings of each state and sample legislation.

According to this report, a common misconception among students
applying for financial aid and even some financial aid departments is
the fact that ineligibility is permanent after one offense. However,
the law clearly states that only after a third time of being caught
in possession of an illegal substance or a second offense involving
the actual sale of an illegal substance will ineligibility become indefinite.

In Rhode Island, the Higher Education Assistance Authority strictly
adheres to these federal rulings. Some other states have made
adaptations, such as allowing individual schools the choice of
denying students financial aid.

Micah Daigle, a URI student who serves on the Board of Directors for
the SSDP and also heads the URI chapter, expressed his enthusiasm for
change in Rhode Island.

"President [Robert L.] Carothers has spoken out against the provision
at press conferences we have organized around this issue, and it
looks like our efforts have contributed to the national backlash," he said.

CHEAR is currently working with the ACLU and the SSDP in trying to
target legislators from 11 different states, including Massachusetts
and Rhode Island. The SSDP is also looking for students who have been
directly affected by the law and want to partake in the lawsuit.

"We are trying to raise awareness," Daigle said, "but what we're
really looking for are plaintiffs."

The government has yet to respond to the joint claim. "These things
tend to move forward quite slowly," Angell said.