DRUG OFFENDERS MAY RECEIVE AID

Students Convicted of Drug Possession Currently Cannot Get Financial Aid

The results of a recent study may prompt members of the U.S. House of
Representatives and Senate to repeal a provision of the Higher
Education Act that has withheld federal financial aid from students
convicted of a drug offense.

A study done by the U.S. Government Accountability Office found that
the provision has withheld federal financial aid from nearly 175,000
college students, yet did not help deter drug use.

The provision that denies aid to students convicted for either the
sale or possession of drugs was first instituted in 1998, when U.S.
Rep. Mark Souder (R-Ind.) tacked it on to the Higher Education Act.
Since the bill began to be aggressively enforced in 2001, the
provision has barred approximately 40,000 students from federal aid per year.

With the Higher Education Act currently up for renewal and review,
U.S. Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) has introduced an act called
Removing Impediments to Students' Education, which would repeal the
entire provision. Frank said he views the punishment as unfair and
potentially discriminatory.

"Students who have drug convictions but come from families that don't
need financial aid aren't affected by this law," Frank told the press
in March. "I don't condone illegal drug use, ... but preventing
students with minor convictions from being able to pursue an
education is counterproductive and excessive."

Souder, who initiated the provision, proposed an alternative
amendment to it that would scale back the severity of the proposal,
but not eliminate it. The amendment would make the penalties
applicable only to students who committed a drug offense while
receiving federal aid.

The current proposal renders a student ineligible for aid if they
were convicted of a drug related offense at any time in the past,
even in high school.

The House committee on education and the workforce said the original
provision was never intended to retroactively penalize students who
were convicted in the past.

"(The new amendment) would ensure that the provision serves as a
deterrent rather than an additional reach-back; it will correct the
misapplication," said Alexa Marrero, spokesperson for the committee.

Students for Sensible Drug Policy, a vocal opponent of Souder's
provision, have argued that the partial repeal would not be enough.

"It's like slapping a bandana on a gaping wound," said Tom Angell,
campaign director of the organization's national chapter. "It would
still leave tens of thousands of students behind."

Margaret Rodriguez, Vice President of the University's financial aid
office, said that the bill has had a fairly small impact on
University students.

But Scarlett Swardlow executive director of Students For Sensible
Drug Policy said that it is often difficult for individual
universities to monitor how many students are denied aid as a result
of the anti-drug provision because if an application for aid is
denied, no explanation is given. State-by-state figures of students
denied aid are not publicly available.

Another reason that the University may not be largely impacted is
that much of the University's drug prosecution is handled internally.

Drug offenses handled by the Department of Public Safety instead of
the Ann Arbor Police Department would not make a student ineligible
to receive aid.

According to the 2005 campus safety handbook, 71 people were arrested
on campus for drug related offenses by the DPS last year; only four
people were arrested by the AAPD.

Even if a student is convicted of a drug offense on the state level
they have the option of not telling anyone about it when they apply for aid.

"We have talked to parents who encourage students to lie on their
application so that they could receive financial aid," Swardlow said.

"One of the really unfortunate consequences of this provision is that
it's promoting dishonesty."

Rodriguez said she felt smaller schools and community colleges would
be more affected by the provision than the University of Michigan.

Many share her concern that the law primarily affects lower income
students, who can't get by without the aid, and students from
minority populations who are often disproportionately convicted of
drug related crime.

"The war on drugs was the national cry at the time, and they were
trying to fight it on all fronts, but this probably wasn't the best
front to be fighting it on," Rodriguez said.