DRUG OFFENDERS SHAFTED

In October 1998, lawmakers signed into the already existing Higher
Education Act, a provision prohibiting government financial aid to
students charged with drug convictions. Under this provision, students
are prohibited from receiving aid for one year after their first
offense and two years after their second.

In addition to withholding aid from students, the act requires
students already receiving aid to notify their financial aid adviser
and pay back the money that they have already received if found newly
convicted. Multiple offenses can result in permanent loss of aid.

In 2003 alone, approximately 26,000 students were denied aid for their
drug offenses. This figure does not include the number of students who
did not bother to apply.

When I first learned about the act, I have to admit that I was
definitely not feeling this one. Upon a closer examination of it, I
found that I was definitely right, and the act is far more ridiculous
than it originally appeared on the surface.

First, this act hurts low-income families disproportionately more than
the well-to-do ones. Denial of financial aid will hurt low-income
families' educational opportunities far more because, well, wealthier
families can generally afford higher education without government aid.

In addition, wealthier families can afford to pay for the legal
representation necessary to avoid drug convictions. I even know a
number of families who have paid hefty sums for the necessary legal
representation to avoid convictions against their child.

The second problem to this revision is that it contradicts the
ultimate goal of the Higher Education Act, which is to make college
more accessible to all students - not more difficult. It is a strange
and unfair attempt to somehow control the country's drug problem.
Limiting a student's eligibility for federal aid is counterproductive
to this goal. Denial of aid to drug offenders is not an answer that
will bring us anywhere closer to solving the country's drug problem.
It would only be more likely to contribute to the downward spiral of
the student. It'd be much more productive for the student and the rest
of the country to have the student enrolled and taking classes at a
post-secondary institution than to deny them of it. What good would
taking educational opportunities away be? In this country, education
is often considered the key to success.

The act also punishes the student twice for the same crime. They
already have drug convictions against them, which most likely has
already deeply affected their lives. On top of a record, judges have
the right to deny offenders of multiple federal benefits, schools have
the right to expel students and the workforce has the ability to fire
a worker because of convictions.

It is simply useless to continue to punish and block opportunities for
offenders who seek a post-secondary education. Most drug offenders
seeking further education, particularly those from low-income
families, probably want to do so because they want to improve the
quality of their lives.

Finally, the act is rather laughable in face of the real drug problem
that I feel ravages campuses across the country - alcohol abuse.
Roughly half of the undergraduate population at Ohio State is not yet
21 or older. But how many of those underage students still choose to
illegally drink?

Think of the number of students you know personally that drink, and
compare that number with the students that you know who use other
drugs such as marijuana or heroin. The number of the former probably
greatly exceeds the latter. My point is that alcohol abuse is a far
more real and serious problem at all universities.

Funds and energy by the government and university administrators alike
should focus on addressing this serious problem in a more realistic
and practical way than taking away educational advancement
opportunities from formerly convicted students.