Part 2 Of 4

HURTING THOSE WHO NEED HELP MOST OF ALL

Background: This is the second of four weekly 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 selling. Congress is reauthorizing the act this year and has
the opportunity to repeal this law.

Henry Urick, an official with UT Student Financial Services, calls the
federal law that withholds financial aid from drug offenders "a
non-event at UT-Austin."

He said he could not recall any student who could not attend the
University because of scholarships lost under the statute. Perhaps one
student since 1999 has had aid blocked under the law, he added.

But they do exist. The Chronicle of Higher Education found
"John."

John, pushing 40, started taking classes at Long Beach City College to
help him find a steady job. In 2002, he decided to quit work and take
classes full-time, but he could not secure any federal financial aid.

John, who asked the Chronicle not to print his last name, also
answered the FAFSA drug question truthfully, thinking his 2001
misdemeanor marijuana conviction wouldn't be a problem. He was wrong.

After being denied aid, John told the Chronicle he was considering
dropping out: "I love my classes, but my bills are piling up," he said.

Federal financial aid accounts for most aid given to students. Almost
half of all students at public universities and three-fourths of
students at private institutions rely on some form of financial aid.

The large majority of this aid comes in the form of need-based
scholarships (Pell Grants, Perkins Loans, etc.). Need-based aid, by
definition, is oriented toward economically disadvantaged families.

It becomes pretty clear, then, who is most affected by FAFSA's drug
question: Poor students.

A 1999 survey concluded that 16.1 percent of American adults between
18 and 25 were using drugs regularly. Other studies have confirmed
that drug use (particularly marijuana) remains rather steady even at
high economic levels and among college-bound students. Yet this policy
places punishment at a level that only affects the needy.

And a policy that unfairly targets the poor also unfairly targets
minorities. The U.S. Census Bureau reported that, in 2003, 26 percent
of black, college-age Americans lived in poverty, compared to only
12.9 percent of non-Hispanic whites.

It gets even worse for black and Hispanic students. While federally
sponsored surveys report that drug use is spread almost equally across
all races, drug arrests are not.

The FBI-sponsored Uniform Crime Report said that, in 2001, blacks
constituted almost one-third of drug offenders. Since blacks use drugs
with roughly the same frequency as whites, they should make up a
similar portion of arrests as they do the population at-large (about
12 percent).

They don't.

There are many possible reasons why minorities are disproportionately
arrested and convicted of drug offenses. It could be due to geographic
disparities in drug enforcement. Laws and police officers may
consistently target some drugs more than others. Or it could be
straight-up, in-your-face racism.

But there is no reason why the poor and disadvantaged should be
consistently set-up to fail. The Solomon-Souder amendment does just
that