Part 4 Of 4

FIXING FAFSA'S DRUG PROBLEM

Background: This is the fourth of four editorials on the Solomon-Souder
amendment to the Higher Education Act. The provision denies federal
financial aid for a period of time to those convicted of drug possession or
distribution. Congress is reauthorizing the act this year and has the
opportunity to repeal the law. Previous editorials dealt with inequity in
the current law; this one focuses on prevailing attitudes and possible
solutions.

People don't think the way Congress did in 1998, when students with drug
convictions were barred from receiving financial aid. Not even the law's
author.

Rep. Mark Souder, R-Ind., has tried several times to change the way this
law is interpreted by the Department of Education. He claims the law was
never designed to punish people who were convicted of drug offenses before
ever receiving financial aid.

"Nobody would favor a reach-back provision," Souder told National Public
Radio in March 2004. "For example, I am an evangelical Christian. I believe
people change. And when they change, we want to encourage them to go to
school."

Souder wants the law to be changed so that only students who are convicted
of drug offenses while they are receiving financial aid get barred. He has
blamed the Clinton administration for improperly interpreting the law.

Students with one drug possession conviction who apply for financial aid on
the 2005-2006 FAFSA will be denied aid for one year. Two convictions
extends ineligibility for one year; three means "indefinite" ineligibility.
Students with one selling conviction are ineligibile for two years; those
with two are barred for life. These bars can be cleared with adequate drug
rehab.

A bill to amend the Higher Education Act would make Souder's
clarifications. Students would only be denied further loans, grants or
work-study if they violated drug laws while receiving federal aid.

Another bill, filed in early March, would eliminate the language
altogether. The proposal is a perennial one from Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass,
who has attacked the law for being hypocritical and "hysterical."

The American public may be on Frank's side. A private poll conducted in May
2004 concluded that 67 percent of people support "changing" the law, and
only 25 percent found it acceptable. The poll was commissioned by Faces &
Voices of Recovery, a group that advocates recovery-oriented drug policies,
and had a 3.46 percent margin of error.

Even university administrators have taken sides in this debate. The
National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators has lobbied
against the law since 1998 and say they want it repealed. Yale University
has gone one step farther: In 2002, the administration approved a policy to
reimburse students who lost federal aid through this particular provision.
At the time, no Yale student had yet lost aid due to drug convictions, and
a university spokesman said the measure was largely a public statement.

Student opinion came around a bit more slowly. The earliest editorial
available on U-Wire (a free distribution service for college newspapers)
actually supported the Solomon-Souder amendment. The Pitt News at the
University of Pittsburgh called the measure a "good strategy for 'weeding
out' some of the applicants," and said, "If students are not going to be
responsible for their lifestyles, the federal government should not be
responsible for funding their education."

But newspapers did report considerable success for petitions against the
restriction. And, aside from the Pitt News editorial, only one other
college newspaper has supported the measure (The Iowa State Daily wrote an
editorial that seemed to advocate punishing other criminals as well).
Thirty-five editorials have opposed it, the latest one being in October 2004.

UT Student Government also has the opportunity to step into this debate. SG
will consider a resolution tonight that criticizes Bush's proposed policies
regarding higher education. The resolution, sponsored by President-elect
Omar Ochoa, is a strong and well-reasoned argument against the elimination
of the Perkins Loan program that has this page's endorsement.

But, in its current form, the bill does not mention FAFSA's drug question.
It should use its newfound interest in federal higher education policy to
stand up for those who are hurt most by the Souder amendment: poor and
minority students.

Repealing the drug provision should not be a controversial or partisan
issue. And it has little to do with one's stance on drug policy in general.
The law, either as it stands or with Souder's proposed softened language,
is unfair to one kind of criminal. And it keeps aid and education out of
the hands of those who need it most.

A complete repeal is the only acceptable solution to the FAFSA's drug problem.

To view the related stories follow the links below. VIEWPOINT: higher
education and the drug war, part 1 of 4 VIEWPOINT: hurting those who need
help most of all, part 2 of 4 VIEWPOINT: A question of uncertainty, part 3 of 4