US MI: EDU: EDITORIAL: NO WAY OUT

NO WAY OUT

Without Financial Aid, Drug Offenders Trapped

The last thing on the mind of a low-income student struggling to
hurdle the financial obstacles of the college application process is
a drug charge he received years before. But as some lawmakers see it,
that charge could disqualify a student from receiving thousands of
dollars in federal aid a€" money many students have come to rely on
for enrollment.

A provision is fastened to the 1998 Higher Education Act that denies
federal financial support to prospective college students convicted
of drug offenses. Unfortunately, instead of deterring illicit drug
activity, the statute shutters valuable windows of opportunity for
students already in dire need of enrichment. Federal policy should
embrace access to education as a motivating and uplifting force, not
an instrument of punishment. With the Higher Education Act up for
reauthorization, lawmakers should do everything in their power to see
that any renewed draft is free of these damaging provisions.

Though the provision was initially meant to deter future drug users,
the brunt of its impact has been retroactive. According to a recent
study by the U.S. Government Accountability Office, through four
years of enforcement, the provision has withheld financial aid from
almost 175,000 college students. That's approximately 40,000 students
a year forced to find other means of paying for college. Furthermore,
the same GAO report concluded that the policy has fallen decidedly
short in its efforts to discourage drug use. Those results aren't
surprising. While there are certainly a number of calculations that
cross the mind of a high school student before using drugs, whether
or not he can qualify for federal Pell Grants isn't one of them. If
the immediate and often daunting threat of arrest and incarceration
doesn't deter a young drug offender, the distant denial of financial
aid for college certainly won't either.

But much more than a practical failure, the policy is a striking
example of how the punishment often exceeds the crime in public
policy. Many of the charges that disqualify an aid candidate are
minor misdemeanors, infractions that hold no reasonable bearing on a
studenta€TMs character or promise as a student. For these students --
with whom the justice system has already dealt -- withholding aid
simply adds an excessive layer of punishment. The provision blocks
one of the most reliable pathways away from a life of crime and
poverty -- higher education -- from the low-income students most in
need of an uplifting educational experience.

Continuing to withhold federal financial aid from convicted drug
offenders will widen already-gaping class and racial disparities
within our system of higher education. By its very nature, the policy
disproportionately burdens low-income college applicants -- those in
need of financial support -- while having almost no effect on those
students wealthy enough not to qualify for federal aid. Regardless of
the degree of their offense, previous drug offenders who have made
the decision to apply to college are clearly doing something right.
The provision is unforgiving to those students whoa€TMve taken the
initiative to better their circumstances, instead by holding the one
resource instrumental in advancing their education and development hostage.