DRUG PROVISION MEETS OPPOSITION

Dept. Of Education Faces Lawsuit

Despite being passed six years ago, a higher education act continues
to receive criticism. Under the higher education act, students with
drug convictions are ineligible for federal financial aid to attend
institutions of higher learning. Federal financial aid includes
grants, loans and work study programs.

On Jan. 26, the Students for Sensible Drug Policy requested that the
Department of Education release a state-by-state breakdown of
students denied federal financial aid.

Tom Angell, campaign director for the SSDP, said the Department of
Education tried to charge the SSDP $4,100 for the document. The
organization threatened to challenge the charge in court, and the
Department of Education dropped the fee.

Angell said they received the demographics last week, but they were
incomplete. Data for one of the years was missing, and the totals
from all of the states did not add up to previous statistics they had
been given by the Department, Angell said.

"I don't know if it's incompetence or they are trying to make it look
like the law is affecting less students," Angell said.

Angell said as long as the department gives the complete
demographics, they will not file suit.

The Department of Education did not return numerous phone calls by press time.

On March 22, the SSDP filed a class-action lawsuit in partnership
with the American Civil Liberties Union challenging the drug
provision. The groups are asking the U.S. District Court of South
Dakota to strike down the law and reinstate aid to all affected students.

"It's unfair to punish people twice. This is double jeopardy," said
Allen Hopper, senior staff attorney for the ACLU's drug law reform
project. "Someone gets convicted of minor drug abuse, they pay their
debt to society and then they can't get into school."

Hopper said federal judges have had the power to impose restrictions
on federal financial aid as part of a sentence, and 98 percent of the
time the judges did not include them.

a€oeWe believe that they recognize that the best thing for themselves
is to keep them in school,a€ Hopper said.

Stephanie Babyak, Department of Education spokeswoman, said the
department will carefully review the ACLUa€TMs complaint.

"Our concern is that this law really is a barrier to education,"
Hopper said. "We know that it is ineffective at deterring drug use."

The provision, was added as a committee amendment in 1998, and
prohibits eligibility for students revealing drug convictions on the
Free Application for Federal Student Aid.

According to Angell, more than 185,000 would-be students have been
denied financial aid, which includes loans and work-study programs,
under the drug provision.

"Congress sought to discourage illegal drug use by the nationsa'
youth by passing this restriction on federal student aid in
1998,"Babyak said. "The Department supports Congress' efforts to
decrease illegal drug use and protect the health and safety of all
our nation's students, from pre-school to adult."

SSDP said Congress slipped the amendment was slipped into the Higher
Education Act without debate or vote, so many lawmakers were unaware
of the law until long after its enactment.

In January, an amendment was passed that made the provisions apply
only to students receiving aid at the time of conviction.

Students convicted for possession are ineligible for aid for one year
from the date of the offense, two years from the date of the second
offense and ineligible indefinitely if convicted three times.

Students convicted of distribution are ineligible for two years from
the date of the first offense and ineligible indefinitely if
convicted twice. Students barred from receiving aid can retain
eligibility prior to the designated terms only by completing a
federally approved drug rehabilitation program.

Mary Parker, director of Student Aid and Scholarships, said she has
not seen much of an impact from the provision at the University.

"The majority of what we see is that students fill it [FAFSA] out
wrong," Parker said.

Josh LeFort, visual art junior, said the drug provision is the
government interfering in students' lives.

"As long as it's not harming anyone else, why should it be wrong?" Lefort said.