Click here for printer-friendly version

In 1998, Congress enacted an amendment to the Higher Education Act, sponsored by Congressman Mark Souder (R-IL) that every year denies loans, grants, even work-study jobs to tens of thousands of would-be students with drug convictions. These young people, who have already been punished for their offenses, are now dropping out of school or reducing their course loads because they cannot afford the high cost of tuition.

Since that time, Students for Sensible Drug Policy, a major student-led campaign, and the Coalition for Higher Education Act Reform (CHEAR-- a coalition of education, civil rights, religious, drug policy reform and other organizations) have worked to repeal the provision.

A bill in Congress to repeal the HEA drug provision, known as the RISE Act (Removing Impediments to Students' Education) or H.R. 1184, has gained 70 co-sponsors, and a resolution opposing the provision has been adopted by over 115 student governments. While the bill has not yet been acted on, a partial victory was won on February 1, 2006. The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 included measures to scale back the provision that has affected hundreds of campuses around the nation.

Prior to the recent changes in the provision, students with drug convictions that took place before or during their college enrollment were ineligible for federal financial aid. Under the revised provision, juvenile drug offenses will not exclude students from receiving financial aid. Unfortunately, thousands of student who are convicted of drug offenses while in college are still ineligible for federal financial aid.

While federal policy regarding drug convictions and financial aid is well known, individual state policies are not as clear. A new report by the Coalition for Higher Education Act Reform addresses the confusion regarding how states interpret the HEA drug provision. Often times students with drug convictions unnecessarily lose both federal and state financial aid, even when the state law may not prohibit students from receiving this aid. The report aims to contrast state and federal policy regarding the drug provision.

Information on the impact of the HEA drug provision has not been easy to obtain. Since 2004, Students for Sensible Drug Policy has been trying to aquire a state-by-state breakdown of all the 175,000 students who have been affected by the drug provision. The information, which should be available for free under the Freedom of Information Act, has been repeatedly withheld from the organization. As a result, SSDP has sued the federal government for access to the information. The lawsuit was covered in a New York Times editorial on February 6, 2006.

Rationale for the Provision

Souder intended to deter students from using or selling drugs while receiving government subsidies for education. He has repeatedly stated that he never intended for the provision to be used retroactively. On face value, deterring drug use and keeping public funds from drug dealers' hands are compelling arguments.

What is wrong with the provision?

IT HURTS LOWER INCOME FAMILIES. Denying financial aid to students hurts only those students who need the aid, namely, children of lower income families. Children of the well-to-do need not worry about losing their college opportunities: If arrested for a drug offense, children of the well to do can afford the quality legal representation necessary to avoid drug convictions. In the event of a conviction they are more likely to be able to pay tuition without financial aid.

IT HAS A DISCRIMINATORY IMPACT. According to The Bureau of Justice Statistics, while African Americans comprise approximately 13% of the population and 13% of all drug users, they account for more than 55% of those convicted for drug offenses. The racially disproportionate rates of drug convictions is spread into the realm of higher education via this law.

IT PUNISHES STUDENTS TWICE FOR THE SAME CRIME. Those would-be students who have their aid cut have already paid whatever price the criminal justice system demanded. It doesn’t make sense to punish young people in a way that limits their ability to get an education and improve their lives. A 1988 federal law gives all judges the option of denying drug offenders federal benefits such as tuition grants and loans. School administrators have the power to expel problem students. They know the students best, and they should be the ones who decide students' educational futures.

IT DOES NOT SUPPORT THE DRUG ABUSE TREATMENT PROGRAMS IN WHICH IT PURPORTEDLY SEEKS TO ENROLL STUDENTS. The California treatment outcome study demonstrates that for every $1 spent on treatment, $7 is saved in criminal justice, health care, or welfare costs that otherwise would be borne by society. But treatment accounts for less than 15% of the federal drug control budget: White House data shows that most of those who need it don’t get it-millions of people every year. While the federal financial aid can be restored after successful completion of a qualifying treatment program, the Higher Education Act does not allocate any money for treatment. The students who can’t afford college without public aid are likely to be unable to afford private treatment, or the cost in time off from work or school necessary to participate in such programs.

IT WILL NOT SOLVE OUR NATION'S DRUG PROBLEM. The goal of the Higher Education Act is to make it easier for all students to obtain a full education, not more difficult. Limiting the number of students eligible for federal aid is counterproductive. Denying students the opportunity of a college education brings us no closer to solving the nation's drug problem. This provision actually increases the already destructive impact of the War on Drugs.

IT IGNORES THE MAJOR DRUG PROBLEM ON COLLEGE CAMPUSES. The major drug problem, on campuses and elsewhere, is alcohol abuse. Even though drinking is also an illegal activity for the great majority of college students, who are under 21 no one seriously suggests that revoking eligibility for financial aid would be a sensible approach to that very serious problem. The waiver for treatment provision fails to distinguish between casual use and serious abuse. The fact that a student has been caught smoking or possessing marijuana, for example, is no more an indicator of drug addiction than underage drinking is a criterion for admission to an alcoholism treatment program.

If you wish to contact your Congressional Representative about this important issue, click here. And use your zip code to find your representative's contact information.