DECRIMINALIZING FAFSA

As the cost of attending a university, public or private, rises, more and
more students depend on financial aid. But what most of these applicants do
not realize is that they could be denied financial assistance based on how
they answer a single question.

Question 31 of the FAFSA form asks students whether they have been
convicted of possession of a controlled substance. Students who mark "yes"
can be denied federal aid, regardless of how they answer the rest of the
questions.

On March 9, more than 50 federal legislators introduced the Removing
Impediments to Students' Education Act to the House to repeal the
legislation that created the policy, a 1998 amendment to the 1968 Higher
Education Act. U.S. Rep. Mark Souder, R-Ind., who introduced the amendment,
said he intended the rule to only apply to students who are convicted of a
crime while receiving financial aid, not students who want to apply for
financial aid in the future.

"It never should have been enforced that way," said Seth Becker, Souder's
press secretary, in a 2003 interview.

Proponents of the current policy argue that the law serves as a deterrent
to drug use, but this logic is asinine. It is hard to believe that drug
users will stop getting their fix because they will not get federal aid
when they can simply lie on the FAFSA form. According to the Department of
Education, 46.1 percent of all U.S. undergraduate students received some
form of federal aid in the 2003-2004 school year. It is impossible for the
government officials to run background checks on all FAFSA applicants.
There are simply too many of them.

This law also fails as a deterrent because most students don't even know
that the law exists. According to the American Civil Liberties Union, more
than 160,000 students have been denied aid since the amendment went into
effect because they did not understand that there is a wrong answer to
question 31. And while the law allows students to regain eligibility after
completing a qualified treatment program, students - who applied for
federal aid because they can't afford tuition in the first place - have to
pay for these expensive programs.

It is also baffling that drug offenders are singled out by this
legislation. The principle of withholding money from those who break the
law is understandable, although it does appear draconian - it is a second
punishment to those who were already prosecuted. But does Congress think it
is OK to subsidize child molesters and axe murderers' college education so
long as the potheads have to pay their own way?

What is even more troubling, however, is the potentially negative impact of
the policy on minorities. According to a 2000 report by the Human Rights
Watch, 62.6 percent of all drug offenders admitted to state prisons in 1996
were black - even though five times as many whites use drugs as black. It
also states that in Illinois, a black man is 57 times more likely to be
sent to prison on drug charges than a white man.

Universities and colleges in United States are seeing drops in minority
enrollment already. The statutes can only exacerbate the problem further by
taking federal aid away from minorities who were penalized in the courts
for the color of their skin.

Congress should move quickly to pass the RISE Act. Not only is the 1998
amendment an unfair and unwieldy misinterpretation, but it also supersedes
the authority of the professionals entrusted with deciding who the
meritorious students are - the educators. Institutions of higher education
are, in the end, businesses, and they maintain product quality through
careful screening of the applicants. The clumsy and inefficient colossus of
federal bureaucracy should not intrude.