Denying college aid because of past drug related convictions

[Vesayen]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...ts_chicagotrib /denyingcollegeaidoverdrugsfacesfight

Denying college aid over drugs faces fight
2 hours, 22 minutes ago Add Top Stories - Chicago Tribune to My Yahoo!


By Bonnie Miller Rubin Tribune staff reporter

Thousands of college-aid applicants have been denied federal money over the last five years because they were convicted of possessing or selling drugs--a policy supporters say serves as a deterrent to drug use and ensures that aid goes to those who deserve it.



But opponents are gearing up to jettison the provision when the Higher Education Act comes up for renewal this year, arguing that education should not be used as a weapon in the war on drugs. The policy disproportionately hurts lower-income families who are least able to afford college tuition, they say, while noting that punishment for such offenses is already meted out in court.


"I don't understand why you'd want to hinder someone's ability to go to college," said Caton Volk, 23, who dropped out of the University of Illinois at Chicago after he discovered he was ineligible for aid. "If the administration is really concerned about drug use, what better means of rehabilitation than education?"


More than 100 student governments have called for the policy to be revoked. Some institutions--including Yale University, Western Washington University, Hampshire College in Massachusetts and Swarthmore College in Pennsylvania--are so opposed to the policy that they will reimburse students who have lost aid because of it.


"We don't believe students should have their education interrupted," said Dorie Baker, a spokeswoman for Yale University, which took a stand even though none of its students has been affected.


Application poses question


On average, about 47,000 of the 10.5 million federal aid applicants lose their eligibility every year, according to the American Council on Education, the major coordinating body for the nation's higher education institutions.


The process works like this: Students must complete the Free Application for Federal Student Aid. Question No. 35 asks: "Have you ever been convicted of selling or possessing drugs?" Applications with a blank or "yes" are flagged. The applicants are then sent a letter that explains that they might not receive aid and asks some follow-up questions.


Those with one drug offense are ineligible for one year for government grants or federally backed loans; a second conviction bars applicants for two years. However, they can regain eligibility upon completion of an approved drug-rehabilitation program.


The mere presence of the drug query rankles critics.


"The financial aid form was designed to help lower and middle-class students gain access to college--not be used as a mechanism to collect information," said Chris Simmons of the American Council on Education. "I understand why Congress wants law-abiding citizens, but this punishment does not affect all students equally."


Others groups--from conservative Christians to mainline anti-drug organizations--endorse the idea. "There's no entitlement to this money," said Sue Thau, a public policy consultant to Community Anti-Drug Coalition of America.


"By the time you're in college, you're old enough to know that your actions have consequences," she said. "What it says to kids is: You've got a good thing going here. Don't screw it up."


Steve Dnistrian,an executive with Partnership for a Drug-Free America, also believes it acts as a deterrent.


"This gives students a lot of incentive to make good decisions ... and we're for anything that reinforces social norms that help persuade young people not to use drugs," he said.


But to Marisa Garcia, the law doesn't keep her peers off drugs--only out of school. Garcia's financial aid was jeopardized in 2000 after she was caught with a marijuana pipe in her car.


"It was my first time. ... I had never even had a traffic ticket," said Garcia, 22, of Santa Fe Springs, Calif. "So I just paid my $400 fine and didn't think much of it."





After she was accepted at California State University at Fullerton, she filled out her aid application and received the bad news. "There was no way we could afford college without loans," said Garcia, one of four children of a single parent.

Only because her mother refinanced the house and received a raise at her florist job was she able to scrape together tuition, Garcia said.

"What happens to kids whose families don't have a house?" she said "It doesn't make sense to penalize young people who want to better themselves."

Volk was busted for possession of marijuana in 1998, one week before he graduated from Naperville North High School. He attended UIC for one semester, with his parents paying the bills. But then his family's financial situation changed, and his past came back to haunt him.

"[The marijuana] wasn't a tremendous amount, just enough to keep me from pursuing a college education," said Volk, who lives in Wicker Park. "I just took one look at the form ... and that was it. I didn't even try. Who knows how many kids just see the question [about drugs] and just forget the whole thing?"

Volk held a string of low-paying jobs before starting his own film production company. "But I still feel like I missed something," he said. "I love the classroom experience."

Unintended effects

U.S. Rep. Mark E. Souder, an Indiana Republican and author of the 1998 provision, says he never intended to include prior offenses as a basis for denying aid. He blames the U.S. Education Department for "misinterpreting" the law.

He is proposing that when the law is reauthorized, only those students with convictions incurred while they are in college and receiving aid be affected.

Despite the widespread criticism, he said he thinks it's the right thing to do.

"I believe that if a student is using drugs, he is probably not making the most of his education," Souder said. "That is bad enough if he is paying for his education himself, but it is simply unacceptable if the American taxpayer is footing the bill.

"What is more, I strongly believe that this law will discourage drug use."

Democratic lawmakers are divided over whether they should continue to oppose this weaker version of the ban. Given the political realities, some say it is the best they can hope for. Others--including Illinois Reps. Jan Schakowsky, Jesse Jackson Jr., Danny Davis and Bobby Rush--have said nothing short of all-out repeal will do.

Matthew Atwood, a graduate student at Loyola University, feels so strongly that the law should change that he is traveling to New Hampshire this month to grill the presidential candidates on their position. (Of the nine Democratic hopefuls, only Ohio's Dennis Kucinich (news - web sites) has called for scrapping the provision.)

The Park Ridge native said the deterrent claim is dubious because the majority of young adults aren't aware the policy exists. But when they do find out, he said, they are "floored and appalled" to find out they can be denied aid for a non-violent crime.

Along with 250 other protesters, Atwood vows to be a persistent presence at a college convention in Manchester this week.

"I feel compelled to be there," he said. "If the candidates care about education than they need to care about this issue. They need to tell us how we can be smart on drugs and no longer hold education hostage."








































My commentary:

Yes, please reward these drug sellers instead of giving the money to hard working individuals who would put the money to better use.

If someone messes up they should of course be given preference over someone who has not.

This isnt an issue of "not giving a second chance to the worthy" its an issue of "there is a limited amount of dollars, and every dollar that goes to some supposedly ex drugy is a dollar taken away from someone who has played it straight." In a perfect world there would be enough money to go around, but there isnt, so why are you penalyzing the individual who played by the rules?

If they are truley reformed then they can work harder for college to show their penance.

[Nubclear]

Hopefully this will encourage more people to not go to college.

[chequita guevara]

Once you've served your time, you shouldn't be punished any longer. It's the American way.

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Once you've served your time, you shouldn't be punished any longer. It's the American way.

No it's not.

[chequita guevara]

Hush, you.

[C0ckney]

that's a silly attidude vesayen. so someone smokes a bifter when they're 15 or something, get caught, so they can't get loans for HE?! if that's the way the law is applied then it seems both unfair and counter-productive.

however refusing aid to those caught dealing or doing drugs while actually in HE i can understand.

[Vesayen]

Every dollar that kid who smoked gets, is a dollar away from someone who does not who is in all other aspects identical. Do you thinkthat is fair?

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Hush, you.

Be patriotic!

[Boris Godunov]

Yes, let's deny reward to those who were once astray but now have seen the light, since continuing to slam doors in their faces will undoubtedly show them why it was worth it to change their ways.

Jeez, the "once a thief, forever a thief" mentality is one of the nastiest bits of bigotry out there. There's a reason Inspector Javert isn't meant to be a shining example to law enforcement.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Vesayen
Every dollar that kid who smoked gets, is a dollar away from someone who does not who is in all other aspects identical. Do you thinkthat is fair?

This isn't about people doing it now, it's about people who did it in the past. Why should some kid's getting arrested for smoking pot 5 years prior affect his being given aid if he is otherwise deserving? Perhaps he's worked hard to get himself back on track? Should we give aid to a kid with crappier grades who just never got caught?

[Vesayen]

There are a limited number of dollars.

Little Johny and Little Bobby are identical in every aspect, until.....

Little Johny was caught selling marijuana and was sent to jail for a year when he was 19.

Little Bobby never sold marijuana.


Every dollar given to the little Johny is a dollar little Bobby dosent get. There are a limited amount of dollars for all the little boys in the world to get from MY tax dollars.

If there was an unlimited amount of money it would be unfair, but can you justify penalizing little Bobby for NOT messing up?

This isnt an issue of not being compassionate, its an issue of not screwing people who never messed in, in favor of those who did.

[Ramo]

Little Johnny and Little Bobby are identical in every aspect, until.....

Little Johnny smokes a pick of cigarrettes on his 18th birthday, and gets addicted. And he smokes a pack a day for the rest of his life. He dies of lung cancer in a few decades. With his college education, he became a chemist for a tobacco company and was therefore complicit in the killing of many, many, many more people weed dealers.

Little Bobby smokes a blunt on his 18th birthday. And then he gets picked up by the police and charged with possession. He's much less inclined to smoke at a comparable frequency because it isn't physically addictive and he just got thrown in prison for doing it. He dies of old age in several decades.

I'd say Johnny messed up, so why should Bobby get screwed by the government?

[Japher]

It's the governments money. If they have a stipulation that says don't do drugs (or at least don't get caught) or else we won't pay for your school, than don't do drugs if you want to go to school!!!

Yet, this law is new, and is affecting ppl who did not know the consequences of their actions, nor could they know. Thus, it is unfair. It should be put into play with lineancy (counciling required, rehab, etc.) for a time and then with due diligence.

To me it is like the US saying it is illegal to smoke cigarettes. So, you stop. A year later THEY find out you use to smoke cigarettes and arrest you.

OTOH, if criminal record has always been a stipulation for government aid, than so be it.

[Berzerker]

Why don't they pass a law forbidding people who used drugs from running for political office? That would have taken care of both Bush and Gore.

[Pekka]

I don't think this is fair. Well depends on the case, and I guess every case is individual case. If someone smoked pot some time ago, and that was it and is not a troublemaker but was just doing stuff that young people do, it should not be a factor. Why? Because, the person has bee already penalized. I'm talking about soft cases, not hard criminals and drug dealers.

If you do one mistake, when you're young, it's not fair that it keeps you back. So the world is not fair, agreed, but it's pretty ****ed up, that it keeps you back if it was nothing but a small thing like that. What comes from that is bitterness against the government, people feel like they don't even get a chance and it's not fair. Is this the way you want to go with a kid who once smoked marijuana just for the excitment of it?

What about other kids, heck, I bet most of them have smoked pot, if not there then IN college. Most have done underaged drinking. Why are they not penalized for it? Because they didn't get caught. So, the only lessons this teaches is that 'don't get caught and you'll be fine'. Look who is the president of the US. He has done drugs. Guy before him did drugs. It's not good example, but college is a huge thing, and if you're not able to do it because of you got caught once smoking the pot.. it's not good.

There are tons of ways to decide who deserves the aid. This is not one of them IMO. This doesn't show crap about how much you want it. People make mistakes. Lot of them are holier than thou, doing exactly the same thing but not getting caught. Of course I'm biased, since I was caught smoking the pot too, but hey I can say for myself at least, that it should not hinder me from doing anything, because I've already paid for it, and had to pay for it few extra times too. If I'm more aptitude and skilled than the person next to me, I can't see any reason why the person next to me should be ahead of me. It's dog eat dog, skills, hard work, yes even penalized people can work hard you know! And I don't want to hear a ****ing word about being lazier than other people. Damn it I work hard in what I do, and if someone says 'well you smoked pot when you were 16' they should STFU or die.

[GePap]

Lets just cut their pay.

While the state is not violating anyone rights by doing this, I do think continually hobbling people for thier past acts is a great way to promote drug use: heck. used it once, I am screwed now, so why stop? The most simplistic generlaization of the reality- if you odn;t give people the chance to make up for their mistakem you rmeove incentive to reform once one has erred.

[Harry Tuttle]

I don't quite know how the law works, at least in my state, but I remember juvenile records being closed upon a person's 18th birthday. Is the information about past drug use completely voluntary or is it only based on post 18th bday records out there (if flagged and investigated)?

If after being flagged an applicant is investigated and has been convicted after their 18th birthday I can see the proponents idea behind the law. i.e. they don't want drug sellers and buyers in a learning environment. Of course this is more discrimination than punishment as a drug conviction presupposes that the person has paid for his or her crimes.

"Those with one drug offense are ineligible for one year for government grants or federally backed loans; a second conviction bars applicants for two years. However, they can regain eligibility upon completion of an approved drug-rehabilitation program."

My question to the above quote: What if they already have gone through rehab? And what if the applicant in question is a 50 year old reformed flower child who had one conviction 30 years ago?

I agree with making an effort to keep drugs out of college, but this law is a poor excuse for enforcing drug laws and dolling out punishment.

[Japher]

I agree GePap.

Still, you have the reverese side of the coin. I do nothing wrong, the other guy still gets rewarded. So why did I even bother staying out of trouble?

Or, I did something wrong, I still got rewarded, so I guess there's no harm in doing thigs I'm not suppose to.

The wrong message is being sent either way.

[Patroklos]

Convicted convicts do not get to vote, it is a result of their actions. Some mistakes have life long consequences, and should.

However, for you reationaries, the burden of your illegal actions does not stick with you forever in this case. So you are required to take counseling or wait a year for aid. I got denied aid for a year for no reason for all as far as I know. It is just happens, but I would be mighty pissed if joe the crack dealer was in prison a year before and now gets money for college over me.

As far as being harmful to low income minorities. Bieng a low income minority is not a blank check to do drugs and other illegal activites and get away with it. It might be harder to do the right thing in a difficult situation, but you must endeavor to do so anyways. If you don't like the harsh word, hate your God.

[Harry Tuttle]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Why don't they pass a law forbidding people who used drugs from running for political office? That would have taken care of both Bush and Gore.

and Bubba, plus a few Kennedys, and a few ex-DC mayors, etc, etc... I agree, NO DOUBLE STANDARD!!!

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Vesayen
There are a limited number of dollars.

Little Johny and Little Bobby are identical in every aspect, until.....

Little Johny was caught selling marijuana and was sent to jail for a year when he was 19.

Little Bobby never sold marijuana.

What if Little Johnny and Little Bobby aren't identical, in that Little Johnny, while still having a jail record, also has better grades, more extracurricular activities and is much needier than Little Bobby? Under this law, Little Bobby still gets the money.

Every dollar given to the little Johny is a dollar little Bobby dosent get. There are a limited amount of dollars for all the little boys in the world to get from MY tax dollars.

If there was an unlimited amount of money it would be unfair, but can you justify penalizing little Bobby for NOT messing up?

Ludicrous. How is Bobby being penalized if they just didn't take into account a past drug conviction for Johnny? That's not penalizing anybody. If Johnny gets the money, then he did so on his own merits/need. Maybe they both can get some money, if less, rather than punishing someone again over something for which he's already paid his legal dues. Haven't you ever heard of double jeopardy? Why should Johnny be punished twice for the same crime?

This isnt an issue of not being compassionate, its an issue of not screwing people who never messed in, in favor of those who did.

No, it's an issue of screwing over people who have messed up. Messing up is a part of life, and is frankly more valuable experience than not messing up. I know plenty of complete shits who never did anything wrong. Just because Little Bobby didn't get caught doing something doesn't necessarily mean he's more deserving, a harder worker or a better person. This rule says that he is, which is why it is repugnant.

[Japher]

Messing up is a part of life, and is frankly more valuable experience than not messing up.

Not really Boris. The real lesson is taught after the error is commited. Which is when these ppl are being denied AIDE. Like I said earlier, however, it is unfair that there doesn't seem to be anything they can do to repay or repent their actions, and there should be. Yet, forgive and forget is not the answer.

[Pekka]

Japher, I disagree. IT should be based on other things. Except if the crimes are actually you know, selling drugs or using harder drugs, something like that.

Why not reward people for their scores at highschool and SAT? Why not make everyone write an essay or something. Or do a test, a completely new test. Then you get points from them, and then you get points from your economical situation at home, which would be the biggest factor?

This doesn't matter if you're rich. You can afford college without any aids. It only limits the poor ones.

This just shows, that your character is judged like this, not what you do and what you're about, but what you have might done in the past. It's ok if were talking about real criminals, but we're talking about curious kids.
Or let's get it fair then, let's do random drug testing on applicants, I bet we can turn down hell of a lot more of them, because they just didn't get caught by the police and this serves them right?

What I'm saying is, it's better to let in a person to this program who comes in and says 'here I am, this is me, I did that but I learned from it and I'm here in interview so you can judge my character better and see how much potential I have', rather than saying 'No'.

I think there are some things that we should forgive, the small things. I bet most applicants who got aid, laughs their asses off because they smoked too, and some of the still smoke and who knows what they use, difference being they didn't get caught.

[Dr Strangelove]

What ever happened to wiping a kids record clean when he reaches the age of majority? I think the usual age is 21. People over the age of 21 who have been convicted for drug related ofenses ought to be able to apply for aid without fear that their record would lessen their chances. Courts are barred from revealing their record, so they shold be able to fill out the application without worry. I wonder if they should even feel compelled to answer the question.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Japher


Not really Boris. The real lesson is taught after the error is commited. Which is when these ppl are being denied AIDE.

How about serving time under the original conviction? See what I said about double jeopardy.

[TCO]

I'm not in favor of subsidized tuition anyway.

[Ramo]

Yeah, only the rich deserve education.

[Japher]

He is proposing that when the law is reauthorized, only those students with convictions incurred while they are in college and receiving aid be affected.

I can live with this, sounds to me like a good idea.

[Ramo]

Why should I be denied subsidized loans because I smoke up once in a while?

[Japher]

Why should I be denied subsidized loans because I smoke up once in a while?

Because it's against the law and you would be using government (those who make the laws) money to pay for your livelihood. It's a big F-you, IMO, it's bitting the hand that feeds you, so to speak.

Personally, if I had a kid and college, and I was funding them, and I found out that they had enough money to buy something I didn't approve of, I would stip them of their benefits for sure.

I am not saying don't do it, I am just saying don't get caught.