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 sudsidies 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; they can afford the quality legal representation necessary to avoid drug convictions as well as the price of tuition without financial aid. Young ex-offenders are likely to be adversely affacted by Setbacks like the inability to raise money for tuition, and may be sent into a downward spiral toward failure.

IT HAS A DISCRIMINATORY IMPACT. In New York State, almost 95% of those in prison for drug offenses are people of color, but the fact is that the majority of people and the majority of drug users are white. According to The Sentencing Project, African Americans, who comprise approximately 13% of the population and 13% of all drug users, account for more than 55% of those convicted for drug offenses. There is no reason to believe that the disproportionate racial impact of drug law enforcement won’t spread into the realm of higher education via this law.

IT PUNISHES STUDENTS TWICE FOR THE SAME CRIME. These would-be students having their aid cut already paid whatever price the criminal justice system demands. It doesn’t make sense to continually punish young people in such a way that limits their ability to get an education and improve their lives. Additionally, judges handling drug cases already have the option of denying drug offenders federal benefits, and school administrators have the power to expel problem students. These are the people who know the students best, and they should be the ones who decide their educational futures - not the federal government.

IT DOES NOT SUPPORT THE DRUG ABUSE TREATMENT PROGRAMS IN WHICH IT PURPORTEDLY SEEKS TO ENROLL STUDENTS. Studies reported by the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy show 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 drug control budget; hence, most of those who need it don’t get it. While financial aid can be restored after successful completion of a qualifying treatment program, the provision does not allocate any money for treatment. The same students who can’t afford college without public aid are also likely to be unable to afford private treatment, much less to afford 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, not more difficult, for all students to obtain a full education. To limit the students eligible for federal aid is counterproductive. Denying students the opportunity for a college ducation brings us no closer to solving the nation's drug problem; instead it only increases the already destructive impact of the horribly misguided War on Drugs.

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

We encourage you to contact your Congressional Representative about this important repeal effort. To learn more, click here.