MIDDLEBURY SILENT ON FEDERAL AID BAN

I am writing in relation to the recent New York Times article about
the Student Aid Ban for past offences printed on March 13, 2004. The
article explains how current legislation inserts obstacles and indeed
prevents a number of students from being able to acquire federal aid
for attending college, due to prior drug offenses. Intended to prevent
those already receiving federal aid from continuing to get aid if
convicted of a drug offense, it now targets any body who in their past
were convicted of crimes related to drugs.

I have a number of issues with this bill. First, it creates a double
jeopardy situation for convicted persons. They have already been
punished for their crimes, however, they continue to be punished for
previous offenses. These punishments include the inability to get a
decent education, something that has been proven to be a
stepping-stone to recovery and betterment.

Second, this bill unfairly targets and affects those of lower
socio-economic backgrounds - those who could best use financial aid to
better their overall prospects in life. Those students with wealthier
parents and who are convicted, face little to no consequence due to
the bill. This added to the rising cost of higher education will
further add to the division of socio-economic classes. Additionally,
the bill in its current form is being fought by the person who
authored it because it does not do what it was intended to do.
Finally, the only way the federal government knows of past convictions
if the applicant willfully admits to it on their application.

This punishes those who are honest about their pasts, and rewards
those who are not. Lastly, this bill does not affect those convicted
of more violent crimes (rape, assault and battery). There are bigger
fish to fry when dealing with the safety of the campus than those
convicted of non-violent drug crimes.

For Middlebury College to not openly oppose this bill, and let it be
known that it is willing to meet those whose needs are not met by the
federal government, then it is condoning a law that is prejudiced and
damaging to many in society. Other institutions, of the same stature
as Middlebury such as Yale, Hampshire and Swarthmore have already
taken these steps. Why shouldn't Middlebury do the same if it is truly
a need-blind school?