Pubdate: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 Source: Daily Iowan, The (IA Edu) Copyright: 2005 The Daily Iowan Contact: http://www.dailyiowan.com/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/937 Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/hea.htm (Higher Education Act) Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/youth.htm (Youth) WEDDING DRUG CONVICTIONS AND AID As reported in The Daily Iowan on March 22, Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., has introduced the Removing Impediments to Students, Education Act in the U.S. House of Representatives. This bill, if passed, would remove a provision of the Higher Education Act stipulating that students with minor drug-related convictions cannot receive financial aid from the federal government. While we agree with the premise animating this specific provision - in theory, the policy purports to reduce drug use and experimentation among college students - we support Frank's attempt to quash it for a number of reasons. First, the Higher Education Act bans federal aid to students convicted of drug offenses, but it does not make qualifications for students convicted of any other crime, including those much more serious than a charge such as simple marijuana possession. This incongruity is so nonsensical that it edges into the realm of satire: Isn't it a greater detriment to other students and faculty to be in the presence of a federally aided bank robber than someone who decided to smoke a joint? If being caught with a bag of weed justifies stripping a student's financial aid, then surely a conviction for drunken driving - to say nothing of other potentially violent offenses such as battery or assault - should merit the same punishment. One incident of poor judgment at a young, impressionable age, particularly a mistake that is not terribly uncommon, should not serve as an insurmountable barrier to obtaining an education. A provision that punishes an immature high-school senior but not a rapist is one that sends the wrong message, to say the least. Moreover, no mechanism exists for enforcing this policy. Students are simply asked a "yes-no" question about their drug-related conviction history on the Free Application for Federal Student Aid. Cathy Wilcox, the university's associate director of Student Financial Aid, candidly pointed out that there is no investigative procedure by which the government can check to see if students are honest in their answers. On top of that, if students answer "yes" to the question, the applications are returned and the students are given the chance to change the answer. Thus, even if financial-aid applicants are truthful about their criminal histories - which cannot be verified effectively - they are given a second chance to lie if they so choose. Finally, in accordance with criticisms leveled by members of UI Students for Sensible Drug Policy, the provision as it stands has a higher probability of penalizing minorities, who are statistically more likely to be convicted of a drug-related crime. Particularly with problems already surrounding inequality of education in this country, it's another valueless restriction that we don't need. Sensible efforts to encourage prospective students to take their future college careers more seriously should be supported. But a policy that is so narrowly focused and illogical without any mechanism for its enforcement is hardly an example of that.