Pubdate: Tue, 16 Aug 2005
Source: Washington Post (DC)
Copyright: 2005 The Washington Post Company
Contact:  http://www.washingtonpost.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/491
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/hea.htm (Higher Education Act)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/find?225 (Students - United States)

LOSING STUDENT LOANS

WHEN THE HIGHER Education Act was reauthorized in 1998, Rep. Mark
Edward Souder -- the Indiana Republican whose favorite pastimes
include trying to disembowel the District's gun safety laws --
co-sponsored an amendment that would strip students of federal loans
if they were convicted of possessing or selling drugs. Eligibility
could be taken away for one year, two years or indefinitely, depending
on the type and number of convictions. Since the law went into effect,
it reportedly has had an impact on about 160,000 students.

Now Mr. Souder says that the law has been misinterpreted and that it
was intended to apply only to offenses committed while the student was
receiving federal aid. The latest reauthorization bill -- out of
committee and waiting to be placed on the House calendar -- has been
amended to fix the ambiguous wording.

Two key problems with the original provision remain. First, drug
offenses are still singled out. Without a doubt, the convictions that
warrant indefinite disqualification -- two for drug dealing or three
for possession -- are very serious. Murder, rape and arson, however,
are awfully serious crimes as well, yet those felonies do not result
in automatic ineligibility for federal student aid. The other concern
is one of equity. Students whose parents can afford to pick up the tab
without federal assistance would be able to stay in school,
essentially unaffected by the sanction, while students from low-income
families -- and even some from middle-class families -- would probably
be forced to drop out until they could regain student loan
eligibility. The act, in essence, is dangerously flawed on two counts.

Nonetheless, just as public housing tenants can be evicted for drug
offenses, students with federally guaranteed loans committing similar
offenses should not expect immunity. It is also important to note that
even when a student loses his or her loan eligibility, completing a
government-approved drug treatment program can restore the privilege.
With all that, the law's deterrent effect remains questionable:
Student loan regulations are unlikely to be first and foremost on the
mind at a Friday night party. There is, however, still a case for Mr.
Souder's amendment. Clarifying the rules would put an end to penalties
for those who committed their crimes long before they ever thought of
going to college. Narrowing the restrictions is a good first step
toward making the Higher Education Act better. 
- ---
MAP posted-by: Richard Lake