WITHHOLDING FINANCIAL AID ISN'T SOLUTION FOR DRUG USE

Students can be denied federal financial aid for a number of valid
reasons related to aid itself, such as having a poor academic record
and being in default of a previous federal loan. But one rationale
for denying aid, admitting to being convicted of possession or sale
of drugs, stands out as unnecessarily punitive and unrelated to the
process of receiving aid.

At least 10 University students were affected winter term because of
this provision, according to Ilona Koleszar, director of ASUO Legal Services.

Last month, a group of students working with the American Civil
Liberties Union filed a lawsuit to challenge this practice of
refusing students financial aid because of drug charges. The Students
for Sensible Drug Policy are fighting a piece of higher education
legislation, implemented in 2000, that is intended to reduce drug use
on college campuses by denying aid to recent drug offenders.

SSDP Campaigns Director Tom Angell and his followers want the federal
government to remove a question from the Free Application for Federal
Student Aid that asks whether a student applying for aid has any drug
convictions. Although the lawsuit itself makes some tenuous
arguments, we agree with it in spirit: The federal government is
using college campuses as battlefields to fight the war on drugs, but
the needs of students have been lost in the crossfire.

There is certainly an argument to be made that law-abiding students
across the U.S. deserve financial aid more than criminals. Opponents
also argue that the policy serves as a deterrent and that taxpayers
should be able to avoid spending money on criminals.

However, the FAFSA form relies on students being honest on FAFSA
forms; there is no clear way for the government to track down
students who simply lie. It also fails as a deterrent because it is
not widely publicized that drug convictions will lead to removal of aid.

Moreover, the FAFSA only inquires about drug related criminal
activities. Hence a student convicted of marijuana possession within
a few years of applying may have a harder time receiving financial
aid than a student convicted of armed robbery, rape or murder. The
policy also fails to distinguish between misdemeanor and felony drug charges.

If people are worried about using tax money to support convicts, why
has prevailing public opinion shifted to favor rehabilitation of
criminals with taxpayer money? Certainly receiving a higher
education, which almost certainly leads to higher gross wages over a
person's lifetime, is an excellent form of rehabilitation.

Thus the SSDP is correct in its assertion that denying monetary
assistance to drug convicts is more likely to encourage the use of
illicit substances. If a student is unable to stay in school due to a
lack of financial aid, selling drugs may be the best employment
option in lieu of the education necessary to obtain a decent job. The
utmost priority of the federal government should be educating
convicts, especially considering the fact that convicted users and
dealers predominantly are in some of the lowest income brackets in the nation.

Although the provision's author, U.S. Rep. Mark Souder, R-Ind., is
considering revising the law to include all felons, it needs to be
overturned, not expanded. In order to encourage education rather than
criminality, the ability to punish student violations should be left
to the courts and to school administrators.