CRIME AND PUNISHMENT

Problems With The Higher Education Act

Four years ago, Congress passed a bill that has complicated the
relationship between students convicted of a non-violent drug crime and
their financial aid.

In 1998 Congress added a provision to the Higher Education Act. The
provision, written by Rep. Mark Souder, R-Ind., is designed to refuse
federal financial aid to students found guilty of drug convictions.

Sounder's office declined to comment on the provision. However, in a 1998
Washington Post article, the congressman said he approved of the Higher
Education Act because it was designed to give lower-income students loans
and aid to attend college.

Sounder and proponents of the provision argue it will discourage drug use.
According to the Department of Education, 48,651 students have been denied
financial aid as a result of the provision since Congress passed it four
years ago.

Although the Higher Education Act was actually created 30 years ago to open
higher education opportunities to lower-income and minority students,
critics argue the recent drug provision to the bill has had the opposite
effect.

One of the biggest problems the drug provision faces is the fact that it
punishes students twice for the same crime, said Kristy Ringor,
communications director of the United States Student Association in
Washington, D.C.

When a person is caught for a non-violent drug offense, he will be punished
by the criminal justice system. Under the provision, if that person
attempts to receive federal financial aid for college, he will be denied aid.

Ringor said the bill prevents the very people from attending college who
should be especially encouraged to go: students who have had trouble with
drugs in the past but are attempting to change their circumstances and get
an education are refused financial help in attending.

"The main reason that the USSA opposes the bill is that it punishes people
who have already been punished for a crime in such a way that they
frequently can't attend college," Ringor said. "This starts a vicious cycle
for lower income students who can't get out of the trap." The provision has
also been attacked by critics for being racially biased. According to the
Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, blacks make up about 59 percent of
people convicted of non-violent drug offenses, despite the fact that blacks
and whites use drugs at about the same rate.

One of the provision's biggest critics in Congress is Rep. Barney Frank,
D-Mass.

"This provision is simply another way to deny minorities their rights,"
said Joe Racalto, Frank's manager of education. Not only does the bill
discriminate against minorities, it is also crippling students from lower
income families, Racalto said.

Disadvantaged students depend on aid to attend college, even though
upper-class citizens have the money to pay for their education regardless
of limitations, and the denial of aid is not a factor. But for lower-income
students, the gateway to higher education is slammed shut if they have been
convicted of a non-violent drug offense.

This results in a class bias in terms of who is punished for drug offenses,
Racalto added.

Associate Professor Jonathan Laskowitz, sociology, said, "[The provision]
is widening the divide between the powerful and the less powerful, the
affluent and the less affluent." By focusing solely on the issue of drug
use, the provision also ignores other problems in our society. There are
crimes that are much worse than drug indiscretions that go unpunished,
Laskowitz added.

Despite objections to the drug provision, former President Bill Clinton
praised the act.

"This legislation marks an important step forward in my effort to help more
Americans enter the doors of college," Clinton said in a 1998 statement.
"This bill will make it easier for millions of Americans to get the higher
education they need to succeed in the global economy." Rep. Frank has
proposed, as an alternative to the provision, that drug usage should be
dealt with in courts, and not with discriminatory laws. Since courts have
the power to revoke federal financial aid, they should take care of all
issues of drug use, Racalto said.

Racalto was quick to point out that Frank is not advocating drug use. "What
we're saying is keep [drug punishment] out of the education system and put
it in the courts where it belongs," he said.

The bill is not scheduled for revision until 2003, but Ringor encouraged
students to take action.

"It's good for people to call their representatives and try to get this law
changed," Ringor said.

Until the drug provision is reviewed, students caught using illegal drugs
will be doubly punished for their crimes.

"It's ridiculous to say that [students] will just stop smoking joints
because they might not receive federal aid," Laskowitz said. "We can't
punish drug issues away."