NEW ADMISSIONS POLICY: URINE TESTING

Student Submission:

Well, if it was up to some people it would be an admissions policy.
Students for Sensible Drug Policy co-hosted the Noodles at Noon event on
Wednesday, Sept. 24. I was on the panel to raise awareness about the Drug
Provision of the Higher Education Act that denies financial aid to students
with drug convictions. Other panelists included Dr. Harris Mirkin, chair of
the Department of Political Sciencet, Sunshine, a criminal justice student
and ex-felon (who is very thankful to get financial aid because her felony
was not drug-related) and Andy Crowther, an instructor in the Department of
Sociology/Criminal Justice & Criminology. There was standing room only in
the Alumni Room, and after a 45-minute presentation on how drug policy
affects education the debate was on.

Students were open-minded about the ways the drug war seeps into our
educational system, through discrimination and state budget policy of
funding prisons over education.

When questions were raised about the fairness of only denying aid to drug
offenders and not other convicts, I was shocked to learn that our Student
Government Association president thinks that anyone who has been convicted
of any crime should not be qualified to obtain higher education.

This is the first thing that is wrong with this provision.

It denies funding to only lower-income students who are in need of
assistance. Children of the well-to-do need not worry about losing their
opportunities.

Another thing wrong with the drug provision is the discriminatory impact of
the nation's drug policy.

According to the sentencing project, African Americans comprise 13 percent
of all drug users but 55 percent of the people convicted for drugs.

There is no reason to think that the racial impact of law enforcement won't
seep into education via this bill. Another problem: it punishes students
twice for the same crime and does nothing to curtail use of the drug of
choice for college students, alcohol.

I mean, come on, who would suggest that denying financial aid to students
who are drinking underage would be a sensible solution to the problem?

This policy does not work; it only creates more social problems.

All in all this was an educational, intellectually stimulating event; even
though there were only two people who voiced opposing opinions, they were
doing it loud and clear.

I am sure others were holding their tongues.

The debate got a little emotional for people who have had bouts with drug
use and saw education as their only way out of the system and into society.

My belief that marginalizing a population will only further their deviancy
fell on some deaf ears, but all in all I think everyone appreciated hearing
the side of the story that isn't often told. I hope this can set a
precedent toward events that further intellectual discussion over foam,
even if they are political.