GAMBLING WITH THE FUTURE

Criminal Convictions Can Rob Students of Financial Aid

Drug convictions could mean more than just legal ramifications -- they
could affect a student's ability to attain a college degree.

A drug conviction can disqualify a student for federal financial aid,
according to the Free Application for Federal Student Aid.

The stipulation, commonly known as the The Drug-Free Student Aid Provision
Educational Campaign, stems from a 1998 amendment to the Higher Education
Act of 1965.

However, for action to be taken, the convicted student must report the
offense to his or her educational institution.

Political science professor John Fliter once actively advised a campaign
against the amendment. His organization, Students for a Reasonable Drug
Policy, is no longer active on campus, but concern about the amendment remains.

"One of the group's main issues was the repeal of the amendment to the
Higher Education Act of 1998," he said. "It basically says that students
forfeit their right to student loans if convicted of a drug offense. It
doesn't matter how minor the offense is; it can be possession of marijuana.
The problem that our organization had is that students don't risk losing
their student loan for any other type of conviction.

"Someone can be convicted of rape or murder and it still wouldn't affect
the student loan."

Fliter is concerned the amendment primarily targets students affected by
drug use.

"Most of the time these students are minority students," he said. "Wealthy
suburban kids who go to college rarely are targeted for drug use."

The amendment states "[a] student who has been convicted of any offense
under any Federal or State law involving the possession or sale of a
controlled substance shall not be eligible to receive any grant, loan, or
work assistance under this title during the period beginning on the date of
such conviction."

For possession of a controlled substance, the ineligibility period for the
first offense is one year. The second offense warrants an ineligibility
period of two years, and for the third offense, the ineligibility period is
indefinite. For the sale of a controlled substance, the ineligibility
period for the first offense is two years, and the period for the second
offense is indefinite.

However, the amendment does allow rehabilitation for convicted students.
Upon the completion of a "qualified drug rehabilitation program," a student
can regain eligibility. Students denied eligibility for and "indefinite"
period can regain it only after such a rehabilitation or if a conviction is
set aside, reversed, or removed from the student's record.

The FAFSA specifies that students must certify eligibility for financial
aid. Furthermore, the application clears the sponsoring institution from
responsibility by stating that the institution is not required to verify
the information unless conflicting information arises.

Larry Moeder, director of Student Financial Assistance, said his office has
not focused extensive attention on the issue, as it does not have
jurisdiction to monitor such student convictions.

"We're not required to report the cases here. It's self-reported between
the student and the U.S. Department of Education," he said.

Criticism of the amendment has arisen in past years due to its selective
nature. Opponents say it allows for discrimination based on race, class and
ethnicity, and campaigns to repeal the amendment have surfaced since its
creation.

Moeder acknowledged the criticism, and said he couldn't predict the
provision's future.

"There's always a concern that it's an inappropriate regulation," he said.
"Who knows what Congress will do with it?"

One of the most active opposing campaigns is Students for a Free Drug
Policy. Located at www.ssdp.org, its mission statement stresses the
importance of alternate punishment for drug use: "Students for Sensible
Drug Policy is committed to providing education on harms caused by the War
on Drugs, working to involve youth in the political process, and promoting
an open, honest, and rational discussion of alternative solutions to our
nation's drug problems."

With a membership of 170 chapters nationwide, the organization's primary
agenda is to repeal the Drug-Free Student Aid Provision Educational
Campaign and "replace zero tolerance with harm reduction."

Fliter said the group prefers therapy as opposed to incarceration for
drug-related incidents.

"Instead of having really harsh convictions, they favor counseling and less
harsh penalties, trying to attack the drug issue from a different
perspective rather than just drug penalties," he said.

According to Fliter, in the days prior to the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks,
K-State student activism revolved around diverse social topics and Students
for a Reasonable Drug Policy had an audible voice on campus.

However, the topics of recent campus activism have shifted primarily to
war, peace, and the conflict in the Middle East, and now Fliter is all that
remains of the organization.

"9/11 had a lot to do with the organization becoming less involved," he
said. "In the aftermath, people became concerned about terrorism, and the
drug issue didn't have the impact that it did before."

He said one of the group's original objectives was to involve Student
Senate in the issue.

"Before the group lost interest, it was trying to get Senate to pass a
resolution condemning the amendments to the Higher Education Act," he said.
"Over 100 student senates have passed this resolution calling for the
repeal of the amendment. We even had some students approach state senators,
but the fact that the Republicans gained control of the House and the
Senate took the steam out of the movement.

"The Republicans tend to be more tough on crime, with harsh penalties on
drug offenders."

K-State Student Attorney Sarah Henson said she is still in the process of
becoming familiar with the amendment. New to K-State in September 2002,
Henson said she primarily is responsible for misdemeanors.

"Keep in mind that if it's a high-level felony, I don't deal with it at
all. I refer the student to a court-appointed attorney," she said. "If I
can get the kid to the right department to ask the right people, that's
what I've been trying to do. I tell the kids, it's a self-reporting issue
and it's between you and financial aid. That's basically how I advise them.

"But for the one honest kid who reports it, that could really screw him up."

She said she worries about the amendment's blanket nature.

"It seems a little heavy-handed to me that we would have this cookie-cutter
'drug crime.' There's a big difference between what a stupid kid does out
of high school with a joint in his pocket and someone who is selling on the
streets.

"You can analyze this absolutely to death, but if we want people to get
their lives straightened out, and the only way to get ahead in the work
force is to go to college, then how are they supposed to get ahead with
these drug convictions making them ineligible?