It’s question 23 on the FAFSA application.
“Have you been convicted for the possession or sale of illegal drugs for an offense that occurred while you were receiving federal student aid?”
Unless you drive a Rolls Royce to campus, or have access to a well-endowed trust fund, the answer better be no.
Last month, USF students received an email reminder that a conviction for the possession or sale of illegal drugs would lead to the loss of their financial aid (addressed on Page 3).
The nationally enforced regulation comes from the Higher Education Act under the Aid Elimination Penalty clause, which essentially says, “It’s OK to do drugs, as long as you’re rich.”
The intention of the clause may be to reduce drug use among college students, but the approach does not support a war on drugs — this is a war on access to higher education.
The Higher Education Act has seen a few changes over the years in regard to punishment for drug crime violations. So, first, a little history:
The act was originally authorized by President Lyndon Johnson, in 1965, “to strengthen the educational resources of our colleges and universities and to provide financial assistance for students in postsecondary and higher education.”
This is the reason we have access to scholarships and low-interest loans (an issue for another time) from the federal government today.
In 1965, the act said nothing about drugs.
However, in 1998, a republican congressman named Mark Souder proposed an amendment to the Higher Education Act that has now barred more than 200,000 students from receiving federal financial aid. The Aid Elimination Penalty prevented students convicted of drug crimes, at any point in their lives, from receiving federal financial aid.
According to Students for Sensible Drug Policy, a grassroots campaign against the Aid Elimination Penalty, Souder’s provision was “slipped into the 257-page HEA reauthorization bill without debate or a recorded vote” and “many members of Congress and financial aid administrators were unaware of [the] change.”
The SSDP was successful in getting Congress to scale back the law in 2006, amending it so people who acquired drug charges before attending college, and receiving aid, would be still be eligible. Only those who were convicted while attending college and receiving federal aid would be penalized.
In 2008, Congress became more lenient in allowing students with drug convictions to regain access to aid. Previously, students had to complete a government-approved treatment program, which were often more expensive than tuition. With the amendment, students have to pass two unannounced drug tests administered by a government-approved treatment program but do not actually have to complete the program.
The law has not been amended since 2008, but the entire Higher Education Act is up for review and reauthorization at the end of this year.
As it stands today, the Aid Elimination Penalty revokes aid only if one is convicted of the sale or possession of drugs while already receiving aid. Congress has made monumental strides in terms of leniency when it comes to this law. But it still lacks common sense.
According to the National Center for Education Statistics, 99 percent of new USF students were receiving federal financial aid from 2010 to 2011, turning the Aid Elimination Penalty into yet another plight of the lower and middle class majority.
The middle class kid who gets caught smoking weed in his dorm, with a small stash in pocket, is at risk of losing out on higher education. However, the student selling ecstasy at a party to compliment his unlimited credit card access from Mother and Father, is not.
Students who are not dependent on financial aid for school do not face the same degree of punishment for drug convictions as those who are dependent on aid. For the former, it’s a mark on their record; a speedbump. But for those in need of a little help, it could be dead end.
It is understandable that the country would not want to fund the education of a convicted drug felon. However, the current system for punishment is completely biased. The consequences for using and selling drugs should affect everyone equally. The solution must be universal.
