Pubdate: Mon, 03 Mar 2003 Source: Kaleidoscope (Birmingham, AL Edu) Copyright: 2003 The Kaleidoscope. Contact: http://138.26.166.169/kscope/feedback.php?to=chief Website: http://138.26.166.169/kscope/bomb.php/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/1879 Author: Jon Paolone Note: Jon Palone is a senior majoring in Environmental Science. FEDERAL AID REGULATIONS A STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION Another year, another biased story on drugs and federal aid. I've touched on this subject twice in the time that I've been a Kaleidoscope staff writer, but again, a slanted article calls for clarification and an alternative viewpoint. In last week's edition of the 'Scope', a front-page story on federal aid and drug convictions was written by Nisha Venkatesan of the Daily Free Press of Boston University. This story was accompanied by a photo and a blurb about the Blount Hall methamphetamine lab bust. How convenient, huh? To include an editorial disguised as an article only peripherally related to what should have been the main story, the meth lab in the dorm, but I digress. The real issue here is that no opposing viewpoint was presented in Venkatesan's article, and that is called poor journalism. Even having written only a few news articles in my time, I know that especially with a hot-button topic such as this, both sides of the argument should be presented. This way, the reader can make up his or her mind. Last week's article covered the Higher Education Drug Provision, and the groups that want to rescind this provision. Here's an excerpt - "Government technicalities are responsible for about 100,000 college students being denied access to aid because of prior drug offenses." That statement was made by Congressman Barney Frank (D-Mass.). A little history first, before I show how biased that statement is: The stipulation that's got Frank in an uproar was a 1998 amendment to the Higher Education Act that was not enforced until 2000. This provision states that students are denied access to federal aid in the form of loans, grants and work assistance because of prior federal or state drug convictions. Not state and school aid, mind you, only federal aid, and only if the drug conviction was within a certain time frame, and it was not when the offender was juvenile. Also, dropped convictions don't count, and the offender can regain eligibility by completing a satisfactory drug rehab program. And of course, the millions of people who have sold, bought, possessed, or used drugs, or who have assisted others who have done the same, but have not been convicted, are eligible. Yeah, that's a law with real teeth. Yet Representative Frank, and numerous other groups are fretting and wringing their hands over "about 100,000" drug offenders being denied federal aid. Good riddance, I say. To people who have been using my federal aid, while I'm trying to get an education and have not even come close to being convicted of any felony or misdemeanor. I can't defend the Department of Education's position that excludes drug offenders from aid, while offering no such stipulation for murderers, rapists, and child molesters. However, I do believe it is a step in right direction. Federal aid is not a God-given right. However, organizations such as the Coalition for Education Act Reform (CEAR) and Students for Sensible Drug Policy (SSDP) and the Leadership Conference for Civil Rights seem to assert that aid is certainly close to it. Now back to that excerpt from last week's article. "Government Technicalities?" Since when do drug convictions become technicalities?! This is just a small example of the slant readily apparent in Venkatesan's story. Readers, you may disagree with my position, but I hope presenting my viewpoint can help you make up your own minds concerning this issue. And remember: Don't get convicted of a drug offense and keep your federal aid. It's as simple as that. For more information, go to www.fafsa.ed.gov/q35wksht_23.pdf to access the worksheet or just search www.fafsa.ed.gov. - --- MAP posted-by: Alex