Part 1 Of 4

HIGHER EDUCATION AND THE DRUG WAR

A Drug-War Double Standard

On Nov 5, 2002, UT-Austin student Ryan Grady met fellow student
Jonathan Flobeck in a Riverside Drive apartment complex parking lot.
Grady carried a "Club"-brand steering-wheel lock. When the
confrontation was over, Grady fled the scene. Flobeck lay on the
ground, "The Club" lodged six inches deep in his head. Four hours
later, the UT mechanical engineering student was pronounced dead.

Grady was convicted in 2004 of aggravated assault with a deadly
weapon. He is still eligible for federal financial aid.

But more than 150,000 convicted criminals do not have that privilege.
They, unlike Grady, were convicted of selling or possessing illegal
drugs.

These would-be aid recipients were the victims of the Solomon-Souter
amendment to the Higher Education Act. Passed in 1998 and implemented
in 1999, the provision denies aid for one year to anyone convicted of
drug possession. A second possession offense leads to a two-year
suspension; three strikes and you're out. Those convicted of selling
drugs lose two years of aid. A second sales offense leads to
"indefinite" ineligibility.

Drug convictions are the only crimes for which financial aid can be
denied. There is no question on the Federal Application for Student
Aid asking for any other part of the applicant's criminal history.
Five convicted sex offenders, including one who kidnapped a girl "with
intent to violate," are enrolled at UT-Austin. The FAFSA does not
discriminate against these people.

Since no measure to prohibit violent convicts from receiving financial
aid exists, the purpose of this law is likely not campus safety.

Souder told The Plain Dealer in Cleveland that the law's "original
intent was to make sure that students who receive taxpayer money out
of your pocket and my pocket have a responsibility to live within the
law." That statement would imply a much broader and more cumbersome
law.

Perhaps Souder means that students have a responsibility not to spend
their aid money illegally (i.e. on drugs). But a student could
purchase illegal firearms, order child pornography or hire a hit man
to knock off a physics professor with his Pell Grant without damage to
financial aid eligibility.

Those who defend the law often point to the idea that drug users are
likely to be strung out and incapable of effectively completing or
utilizing their education. Perhaps taxpayers should not have to pay
for someone to go to college and become an addict.

There are two flaws with this argument. One is the same problem with
consistency. Alcohol and alcoholism are more than prevalent on college
campuses; about 1,400 college students 18 to 24 die annually as a
result of alcohol abuse. Congress should not single out one particular
form of reckless behavior, when others may be much more dangerous.

But the most frustrating aspect of this argument is what the San Jose
Mercury News' Joanne Jacobs called "big-daddy despotism." It's the
idea that the government should continually monitor and regulate the
bad habits of its citizens.

Social programs exist to help citizens who have been put at some sort
of disadvantage increase their social status. And financial aid
programs - which provide real opportunities to receive an
otherwise-unattainable degree - are some of the most direct and useful
social programs. But these programs must accept some rate of failure:
Not all welfare recipients will ever rise above the poverty line, and
not all Medicare patients will live very long.

If the government is to impose strict requirements regarding the
personal habits of aid recipients, it participates in a kind of social
engineering that will likely turn more people away from much-needed
social programs.

So far, there has been no evidence that this law has encouraged users
to "clean up."

Recent developments in grant eligibility:

* HR 507 would change the drug provision to prohibit only students who
are convicted while receiving financial aid. The bill has the support
of Republican leadership and is expected to be voted upon this spring.

* U.S. Rep. Barney Frank said he would submit an amendment to repeal
the provision entirely. Last session, the Massachusetts Democrat filed
a similar repeal that gained the co-sponsorship of 70
representatives.

* The Michigan State News recently reported that a Congressionally
appointed committee recommended repealing the law entirely.