HIGH(ER) EDUCATION

As the U.S. Congress prepares to vote on the reauthorization of the
Higher Education Act, one of its more controversial provisions has
fallen under renewed scrutiny. The legislation's drug provision,
which delays or denies federal aid to applicants with past drug
convictions, has been singled out as unfair and misguided. Much of
this criticism is entirely justified. HEA's drug provision is
clumsily devised and should be eliminated from the reauthorization process.

The Higher Education Act was passed during the Johnson administration
with the intent to create opportunities to attend college for all
would-be students, regardless of their financial status. Many of the
federal loans and grants used by students today were created by HEA.
The fact that the legislation itself should be reauthorized is not
under dispute. However, the drug provision in question was added in
1998 and has since denied financial opportunities to approximately
175,000 students, not counting those who did not apply after learning
of the provision. The provision is another misguided aspect of the
federal government's overzealous waging of the War on Drugs and is
causing more harm than good.

The drug provision delays federal aid for one year for one offense,
two years for two offenses and implements a life-time ban after
three. However, it in no way accommodates for the severity of a
conviction. This is not to mention that those victimized by this
provision are being unduly punished twice for their crimes. Whatever
sentences offenders are handed in court should be the extent of their
punishments. Instead, they are subsequently denied opportunities to
better themselves because of the inherent failings of a poorly
designed piece of legislation. This provision is another in a series
of backward, misguided laws that need to be recognized as such and challenged.