Dept. Of Education Faces Lawsuit Despite being passed six years ago, a higher education act continues to receive criticism. Under the higher education act, students with drug convictions are ineligible for federal financial aid to attend institutions of higher learning. Federal financial aid includes grants, loans and work study programs. On Jan. 26, the Students for Sensible Drug Policy requested that the Department of Education release a state-by-state breakdown of students denied federal financial aid. Tom Angell, campaign director for the SSDP, said the Department of Education tried to charge the SSDP $4,100 for the document. The organization threatened to challenge the charge in court, and the Department of Education dropped the fee. [continues 588 words]
If a recent lawsuit filed on behalf of a student organization proves successful, college students who have been denied federal student aid because of drug convictions may be entitled to once again receive government aid. On March 29 the American Civil Liberties Union filed a case in a South Dakota federal court on behalf of the organization Students for Sensible Drug Policy, which is seeking to repeal a drug amendment to the Higher Education Act. The amendment, sponsored in 1998 by Rep. Mark Souder, R-Ind., denies federal student aid such as Stafford Loans and Pell Grants to students with drug convictions. [continues 912 words]
Dear Editor, Thank you for raising awareness of the Higher Education Act's denial of student loans to youth convicted of drug offenses. Instead of empowering at-risk students with a college degree, HEA limits career opportunities and increases the likelihood that those affected will resort to crime. Speaking of crime, convicted rapists and murders are still eligible for federal student loans. Most students outgrow their youthful indiscretions involving illicit drugs. An arrest and criminal record, on the other hand, can be life-shattering. After admitting to smoking pot (but not inhaling), former President Bill Clinton opened himself up to "soft on drugs" criticism. And thousands of Americans have paid the price in the form of shattered lives. [continues 108 words]
Murder and rape are pretty heinous crimes, but according to the U.S. Congress, felony drug possession is the absolute worst of the worst. At least, that's the message we can glean from a provision in the Higher Education Act, which bars students who have been convicted of possessing or selling drugs from receiving federal financial aid or student loans. The law, which was inserted into the Higher Education Act in 1998, has recently drawn fire from Students for Sensible Drug Policy and the American Civil Liberties Union, both of which say they want it repealed. [continues 504 words]
The controversial lawsuit brought against Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings in March has initiated critical dialogue on the merits and drawbacks of the Higher Education Act (HEA) of 1998. Students for Sensible Drug Policy (SSDP), the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and three students convicted of drug offenses filed the lawsuit that took issue with the student eligibility clause of the HEA. Currently, under the HEA "a student who has been convicted of any offense under any federal or state law involving the possession or sale of a controlled substance shall not be eligible to receive any grant, loan, or work assistance" from the time of the conviction until a year later for a first offense and two years for a second offense. Since the enforcement of the HEA revisions of 1998, nearly 200,000 potential college students have been found ineligible for federal financial aid. [continues 314 words]
Students can be denied federal financial aid for a number of valid reasons related to aid itself, such as having a poor academic record and being in default of a previous federal loan. But one rationale for denying aid, admitting to being convicted of possession or sale of drugs, stands out as unnecessarily punitive and unrelated to the process of receiving aid. At least 10 University students were affected winter term because of this provision, according to Ilona Koleszar, director of ASUO Legal Services. [continues 482 words]
A Group Is Suing To Change A Provision Denying Federal Aid To Students Convicted Of Drug Crimes Question 31 of the Free Application for Federal Student Aid, a familiar document to more than half of the University's students, reads: "Have you ever been convicted of possessing or selling illegal drugs?" Students who answer yes to it don't get federal financial aid. Students for Sensible Drug Policy, a national student group based in Washington, D.C., has filed a class action lawsuit challenging the provision of the Higher Education Act Amendments of 1998 that has stripped federal financial aid from more than 150,000 students convicted of drug possession or distribution since it was enacted in 2000. [continues 569 words]
Dear Editor, I wish to thank The Ball State Daily News for the Friday article "Student files lawsuit; freshman convicted for drug possession loses financial aid." All over America, students - and those who want to be but can no longer afford it - are being victimized and violated by "Souder's Law." I am thrilled that Ball State's Alexis Schwab is fighting back. Schwab is being helped in her lawsuit by the American Civil Liberties Union and Students for a Sensible Drug Policy. I belong to the SSDP Geezer Auxiliary. I strongly urge every Ball State University student to join the SSDP today and follow Schwab's example of defending herself against this vile, child-bashing, racist federal law. [continues 356 words]
A students rights organization filed a lawsuit last week challenging the constitutionality of a federal law that strips students of financial aid if they are convicted of drug offenses while receiving the funding. The Students for Sensible Drug Policy, represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, is contesting the "aid elimination provision" of the Higher Education Act that has denied aid to nearly 200,000 students since 2000. The Higher Education Act was established in the 1960s under President Lyndon B. Johnson to increase access to and affordability of higher education. The drug provision was added when President Bill Clinton reauthorized the act in 1998. [continues 529 words]
WASHINGTON - A Ball State sophomore is suing the federal government over a law written by Rep. Mark Souder, R-3rd, that blocks financial aid to college students with drug convictions. In a class-action case filed in South Dakota, Alexis Schwab, two other students and Students for a Sensible Drug Policy, which has fought the Souder law since it went into effect, say the law punishes people twice for the same offense and does taxpayers more harm than good by making education more difficult to get for some students. [continues 449 words]
FORT WAYNE, Ind. - A Ball State University student is among those suing the federal government over a law that blocks financial aid to college students with drug convictions. The lawsuit filed Wednesday in federal court in South Dakota claims that the law punishes people, including 20-year-old Alexis Schwab of North Judson, twice for the same offense and makes education difficult for some students to receive. Under the law, written by Rep. Mark Souder, R-Ind., students lose all or part of the eligibility for federally subsidized college loans or grants if they are convicted of drug offenses while enrolled at a college or university. [continues 299 words]
Those With Drug Convictions Not Eligible For Aid DAYTON -- The American Civil Liberties Union on Wednesday challenged the constitutionality of a six-year-old federal law that blocks students convicted of a drug offense from obtaining federal student loans. "Closing the campus gates denies these students a crucial chance to get themselves back on track by staying in school," said ACLU attorney Adam Wolf, who called the law "an unfair and irrational barrier to education (that) singles out working-class Americans." The lawsuit was filed in federal court in South Dakota. [continues 187 words]
The American Civil Liberties Union on Wednesday challenged the constitutionality of a federal law that blocks students convicted of a drug offense from obtaining federal student loans. "Closing the campus gates denies these students a crucial chance to get themselves back on track by staying in school," said ACLU attorney Adam Wolf, who called the law "an unfair and irrational barrier to education (that) singles out working-class Americans." At least one Dayton-area college financial aid administrator supports the ACLU's challenge and wonders why no one challenged the law sooner. Emphasizing she was speaking for herself and not on behalf of the college, Kathy L. Wiesenauer, director of Sinclair Community College's financial aid office, said, "I believe that the current law unfairly singles out a class of individuals who have already paid their debt to society through fines, imprisonment or service to the community." [continues 112 words]
Thank you for raising awareness of the Higher Education Act's denial of student loans to youth convicted of drug offenses ("Stopping drugs - -- and students," Feb. 21, p.6 and "Advocacy group fights against drug conviction act," Feb. 24, p.1). Anyone born into a wealthy family need not fear the impact of HEA. Instead of empowering at-risk students with a college degree, HEA limits career opportunities and increases the likelihood that those affected will resort to crime. Speaking of crime, convicted rapists and murders are still eligible for federal student loans. [continues 156 words]
Students for Sensible Drug Policy is to be commended for their successful efforts to limit the Higher Education Act's denial of student loans to youth convicted of drug offenses. Congress' vote to offer amnesty to students busted back in high school is a major legislative victory. Currently enrolled college students, however, are still at risk. And the risk extends far beyond losing federal student loans. Most students outgrow their youthful indiscretions involving illicit drugs. An arrest and criminal record, on the other hand, can be life-shattering. After admitting to smoking pot (but not inhaling), former President Bill Clinton opened himself up to "soft on drugs" criticism. And thousands of Americans have paid the price in the form of shattered lives. More Americans went to prison or jail during the Clinton administration than during any past administration. [continues 99 words]
Congress Orders Assistance For Education To Resume James Harrison earned his high-school diploma while serving three years in prison for trafficking heroin. From there, he went on to be pardoned and earn his master's degree in human services from Lincoln University in Oxford, Pa. He also received a federal student loan to help finance the degree, which he's still paying off. But the 49-year-old from Wilmington credits the loan with saving his life. "If I wasn't able to obtain my higher education, I would have to have resorted to my old lifestyle of drug trafficking," Harrison said. "I wouldn't have had any options if I didn't get the loan."Advertisement [continues 837 words]
The Bush administration has made a habit of keeping public information from the very public that owns it. A good example can be found at the U.S. Department of Education. After dragging its feet for months, the agency has asked a tiny non-profit group to pay a ruinous sum for information on the impact of a law that bars students who have committed drug offenses from receiving federal grants and loans. The law, which cuts off former offenders from receiving financial help even when the crimes they committed were minor and long ago, has become a subject of intense debate. Congress recently approved changes that should moderate some of the law's most destructive effects. [continues 161 words]
BOSTON -- As advocates for substance abusers applaud legislation to decriminalize the possession of small amounts of marijuana, some crime watchdogs are slamming the measure they said would send a mixed message on drug use. A legislative committee advanced a bill on Monday that would make possession of less than one ounce of marijuana a civil offense with a $250 fine for a first offense, instead of a criminal infraction that could land a first-time offender in jail for six months with a $500 fine. [continues 519 words]
BOSTON -- As advocates for substance abusers applaud legislation to decriminalize the possession of small amounts of marijuana, some crime watchdogs are slamming the measure they said would send a mixed message on drug use. A legislative committee advanced a bill on Monday that would make possession of less than one ounce of marijuana a civil offense with a $250 fine for a first offense, instead of a criminal infraction that could land a first-time offender in jail for six months with a $500 fine. [continues 516 words]
Bad grades and plagiarism may get students kicked out of college, but past drug convictions may not hinder their eligibility for enrollment or financial aid. As of Wednesday, Congress proposed to revise the Higher Education Act Drug Provision. The HEA was instituted in 1965 under President Lyndon Johnson and was modified in 1998 to include a drug provision. The provision stipulates that if a student has a previous or current drug conviction on his or her record, he or she cannot receive financial aid or the aid will be suspended or revoked depending on the situation. [continues 437 words]
Reformed Act May Give Students With Past Drug Charges Aid Thousands of students who are caught possessing or selling drugs have lost their financial aid - but this may all change soon since Congress just recently reformed the law that strips aid to students with drug convictions. The Higher Education Act Drug Provision allows more students with past offenses to receive aid, which President Bush is expected to sign into law. But, lawbreakers who were enrolled in school and getting taxpayer support at the time when they were convicted can't apply for aid. The change is expected to benefit mostly older students. [continues 478 words]
The Bush administration has made a habit of keeping public information from the very public that owns it. A good example can be found at the United States Department of Education. After dragging its feet for months, the agency has asked a tiny nonprofit group to pay a ruinous sum for information on the impact of a law that bars students who have committed drug offenses from receiving federal grants and loans. The law, which cuts off former offenders from receiving financial help even when the crimes they committed were minor and long ago, has become a subject of intense debate. Congress recently approved changes that should moderate some of the law's most destructive effects. Students for Sensible Drug Policy, a small nonprofit group, asked the Department of Education to provide a simple state-by-state breakdown of the people who have been denied aid under the law so far. But the department demanded more than $4,000 for this information, an amount the group clearly could not afford. The government argued that the request was not in the public interest and implied that Students for Sensible Drug Policy had some commercial interest in seeking it. These claims are both implausible. [continues 75 words]
An organization that advocates an end to the nation's "war on drugs" sued the Department of Education last week for charging $4,100 for data on the answers given by federal college-loan applicants to a question about convictions for drug-related crimes. The Higher Education Act bars loans to applicants with a drug conviction, although a provision in a spending bill awaiting final passage in Congress would limit that restriction to applicants convicted of drug offenses while they attended college on a federal loan. [continues 166 words]
For those students with drug-related convictions, getting federal financial aid from the government can be a long shot. This may not be the case for much longer, as members of the House and Senate prepare to vote on the Higher Education Budget Reconciliation Act of 2005, which contains an amendment that would change the rules. "Right now, if you have been convicted of selling or possessing drugs, you can be declared ineligible for federal financial aid," said Lisa Hassleschwert, interim director of financial aid for UT. "The new amendment would change the law so that only students who are convicted while receiving the aid money can be penalized." [continues 267 words]
A national student activist group and the American Civil Liberties Union are working to file a lawsuit to overturn legislation that denies financial aid to college students with drug convictions. A drug provision added to the Higher Education Act in 2000 denies federal student aid to college students convicted of the sale or possession of drugs. Students for Sensible Drug Policy, a nationwide student organization for reforming the act, contends the provision is unconstitutional and that it has illegally cost 175,000 students their government aid. [continues 388 words]
Undoes Souder Ban for Drug Convictions WASHINGTON Students with drug convictions in their pre-college years will no longer be cut out of the $67 million federal pool for grants, loans or work-study assistance. Students will lose all or part of their eligibility for federally subsidized aid, however, if they are convicted of drug offenses while they are enrolled at a college or university. A 100-word section in a sweeping budget bill approved by the Senate on Wednesday changes the student aid provisions written seven years ago by Rep. Mark Souder, R-3rd that blocked assistance to students with drug offenses committed at any time in their lives. [continues 428 words]
Despite widespread recognition that mandatory minimums is bad policy, the politics of being 'tough on crime' precludes a more rational approach to sentencing As a twenty-something federal prosecutor in Washington DC, during the crack epidemic in the late '80s, David M. Zlotnick realized that mandatory minimum sentences gave him more discretion than judges who had been on the bench for decades. Since the US attorney's office had the resources, it "prosecuted every five-gram crack-cocaine case." Zlotnick recalls how the poor black kids caught with these small quantities received "sentences of 10 to 15 years, as if they were kingpins of some sort, which seemed absurd to me.O Cases involving similar amounts of powder cocaine, which disproportionately involved white defendants, got far less scrutiny. [continues 3819 words]
The MU chapter of Students for Sensible Drug Policy is to be commended for raising awareness about the Higher Education Act's denial of student loans to people convicted of drug offenses. Instead of empowering at-risk students with a college degree, the HEA limits career opportunities and increases the chance that those affected will resort to crime. Speaking of crime, convicted rapists and murders are still eligible for federal aid. Most students outgrow their youthful indiscretions with illicit drugs. An arrest and criminal record, on the other hand, can be life-shattering. After admitting to smoking pot (but not inhaling), former President Bill Clinton opened himself up to "soft on drugs" criticism. Thousands of Americans paid the price in the form of shattered lives. Marijuana's short-term effects are inconsequential compared to the long-term effects of criminal records. Drug abuse is bad; the drug war is worse. Robert Sharpe, Policy Analyst, Common Sense For Drug Policy. [end]
PROVIDENCE - Some Brown University students joined others across the country Thursday to protest a federal law denying college financial aid to applicants convicted of drug offenses. The Higher Education Act is up for reauthorization this year, and both the House and Senate have proposed legislation loosening, but not eliminating, the ban on federal aid for drug offenders. Wearing graduation gowns and standing before cardboard jail bars, six members of Students for Sensible Drug Policy handed out fliers and urged passers-by on the Brown Campus to tell their senators and representatives to vote against the ban. [continues 318 words]
This letter is in response to the Oct. 18 editorial, "High(er) Education." Thank The Post for raising awareness of the Higher Education Act's denial of student loans to youth convicted of drug offenses. Instead of empowering at-risk students with a college degree, HEA limits career opportunities and increases the likelihood that those affected will resort to crime. Speaking of crime, convicted rapists and murderers are still eligible for federal student loans. Most students outgrow their youthful indiscretions involving illicit drugs. An arrest and criminal record, on the other hand, can be life shattering. [continues 154 words]
The drug provision of the Higher Education Act (HEA) has denied federal financial aid to those convicted of the possession or sale of controlled substances since 1998. Two thirds of undergraduates receive some form of aid from the University, sometimes including federal funds. However, there has not been a movement on campus to repeal the amendment of the HEA, despite the fact that it is up for reevaluation in Congress for the first time in seven years. The Undergraduate Council did not follow 160 other student governments last March, including those of Yale, Columbia, and Brown Universities, by adopting a resolution calling for an end to the aid ban. In the absence of action by the UC, Harvard has no advocacy organization that deals with drug legalization. Larsen Santos '06, chair of development for Drug Policy and Legalization - a Harvard group that exists only on facebook com - said he could not give suggestions for actions students might take to combat the provision. [continues 708 words]
Students With Drug Convictions Could Lose College Money An amendment to a 1998 drug provision of the Higher Education Act could affect students' eligibility for financial aid based on when they received their drug convictions. More information Ineligibility periods Possession of a controlled substance Sale of a controlled substance Any convictions that occurred prior to the student turning 18 unless tried as an adult or any convictions that were overturned, reversed or otherwise removed from the student's record is not used in determining eligibility. Source: Dec. 2004 Congressional Research Service report "Student Eligibility: Drug Convictions and Federal Financial Aid." Federal Benefits That May Be Denied to Drug Offenders Federal benefits and descriptions: Source: Government Accountability Office [continues 625 words]
A new student organization is trying to persuade GW to lessen its penalties for drug violations, particularly for students who lose University housing after being caught with marijuana in their dorm rooms. Students in GW's chapter of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws said they are critical of GW's policy against marijuana use because students can be evicted from campus after one drug offense. Junior Ronald Fisher, GW NORML president, said he thinks drug violations involving marijuana should be treated similarly to an alcohol violation. [continues 667 words]
Fair or not, students with drug convictions lose financial aid for post-secondary education. According to a provision in the Higher Education Act, students applying for federal financial aid who admit to a drug conviction lose funding. All applicants must answer Question 31 on the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) that reads, "Has the student ever been convicted of possessing or selling illegal drugs?" If students answer yes to the question, they are not eligible for aid such as the Pell Grant and Stafford Student Loans. [continues 391 words]
Group Rallies to Change Act That Denies Aid to Drug Offenders Damien Nichols meets students almost every day who have been busted on the campus for drug use. Some of them lost their financial aid. Some were kicked out of campus housing. And others were suspended from the university. Nichols is the president of Students for Sensible Drug Policy, a group on the campus representing a national organization and working to confront problems they see in U.S. drug policy. The group recently ordered T-shirts, stickers and pins to help get their message out and to rally against a 1998 amendment to the Higher Education Act, which is up for reconsideration this year in Congress, that prohibits students convicted of drug offenses from receiving federal financial aid. [continues 650 words]
Title IV of the Higher Education Act is up for reform this year, a law that has reportedly affected more than 160,000 students across the nation. Sec. 483 of Title IV of the Higher Education Act states "a student who has been convicted of any offense under any Federal or State law involving the possession or sale of a controlled substance shall not be eligible to receive any grant, loan or work assistance under this title ..." Periods of ineligibility vary, depending on the number of offenses. In general, a student convicted of one offense is ineligible for a year, two offenses marks ineligible for two years and three offenses brings indefinite ineligibility. [continues 394 words]
As the U.S. Congress prepares to vote on the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, one of its more controversial provisions has fallen under renewed scrutiny. The legislation's drug provision, which delays or denies federal aid to applicants with past drug convictions, has been singled out as unfair and misguided. Much of this criticism is entirely justified. HEA's drug provision is clumsily devised and should be eliminated from the reauthorization process. The Higher Education Act was passed during the Johnson administration with the intent to create opportunities to attend college for all would-be students, regardless of their financial status. Many of the federal loans and grants used by students today were created by HEA. The fact that the legislation itself should be reauthorized is not under dispute. However, the drug provision in question was added in 1998 and has since denied financial opportunities to approximately 175,000 students, not counting those who did not apply after learning of the provision. The provision is another misguided aspect of the federal government's overzealous waging of the War on Drugs and is causing more harm than good. [continues 116 words]
Provision of Higher Ed. Act Under Review A specific provision of the Higher Education Act, which is being re-examined by Congress this year, has come into question because of the restrictions it places on the ability of students to get Federal Financial Aid for secondary education if they have had a drug conviction. According to the current form of the Higher Education Act, anyone applying for federal aid with the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) must answer Question 31 which states, "Has the student ever been convicted of possessing or selling illegal drugs?" and goes on to clarify with the following information, "A federal law suspends federal student aid eligibility for students convicted under federal or state law for possession of or sale of illegal drugs (not including alcohol and tobacco). If the answer to this question is 'Yes,' you will be taken to the Question 31 Worksheet to help you determine whether this law affects the student's eligibility for federal student aid. Count only federal or state convictions. Do not count convictions that have been removed from his/her record. Do not count convictions that occurred before the student turned 18, unless he/she was tried as an adult." [continues 598 words]
Thank you for raising awareness of the Higher Education Act's denial of student loans to youth convicted of drug offenses. Instead of empowering at-risk students with a college degree, the act limits career opportunities and increases the likelihood that those affected will resort to crime. Speaking of crime, convicted rapists and murders are still eligible for federal student loans. Most students outgrow their youthful indiscretions involving illicit drugs. An arrest and criminal record, on the other hand, can be life-shattering. After admitting to smoking pot-but not inhaling-former President Bill Clinton opened himself up to "soft on drugs" criticism. And thousands of Americans have paid the price in the form of shattered lives. More Americans went to prison or jail during the Clinton administration than during any past administration. [continues 91 words]
Thank you for raising awareness of the Higher Education Act's denial of student loans to youth convicted of drug offenses ["Denied for drugs," Oct. 12]. Instead of empowering at-risk students with a college degree, the HEA limits career opportunities and increases the likelihood that those affected will resort to crime. Speaking of crime, convicted rapists and murders are still eligible for federal student loans. Most students outgrow their youthful indiscretions involving illicit drugs. An arrest and criminal record, on the other hand, can be life-shattering. After admitting to smoking pot (but not inhaling), former President Bill Clinton opened himself up to "soft on drugs" criticism. And thousands of Americans have paid the price in the form of shattered lives. [continues 109 words]
ATHENS, Ohio - The Students for Sensible Drug Policy has recently called into question a provision of the Higher Education Act that bans potential college students with drug convictions from receiving government financial aid. That financial aid ban hurts the drug offender in the long term as well as the short term, said campaign Director Tom Angell, because college students are less likely to use drugs than high school students. The ban keeps many qualified people out of college who otherwise would have graduated and contributed to society afterwards, he said. [continues 342 words]
Drug Provision Inflexible, Excessive As the U.S. Congress prepares to vote on the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, one of its more controversial provisions has fallen under renewed scrutiny. The legislation's drug provision, which delays or denies federal aid to applicants with past drug convictions, has been singled out as unfair and misguided. Much of this criticism is entirely justified. HEA's drug provision is clumsily devised and should be eliminated from the reauthorization process. The Higher Education Act was passed during the Johnson administration with the intent to create opportunities to attend college for all would-be students, regardless of their financial status. [continues 201 words]
Fighting Drug Convictions' Effect On Financial Aid The Students for Sensible Drug Policy has recently called into question a provision of the Higher Education Act that bans potential college students with drug convictions from receiving government financial aid. That financial aid ban hurts the drug offender in the long term as well as the short term, said campaign Director Tom Angell, because college students are less likely to use drugs than high school students. The ban keeps many qualified people out of college who otherwise would have graduated and contributed to society afterwards, he said. [continues 342 words]
Thank you for raising awareness of the Higher Education Act's denial of student loans to youths convicted of drug offenses ("Law that strips financial aid for drug convictions reconsidered," Oct. 12). Instead of empowering at-risk students with a college degree, HEA limits career opportunities and increases the likelihood that those affected will resort to crime. Speaking of crime, convicted rapists and murders are still eligible for federal student loans. Most students outgrow their youthful indiscretions involving illicit drugs. An arrest and criminal record, on the other hand, can be life shattering. After admitting to smoking pot (but not inhaling), former President Bill Clinton opened himself up to "soft on drugs" criticism, and thousands of Americans have paid the price in the form of shattered lives. More Americans went to prison or jail during the Clinton administration than during any past administration. [continues 91 words]
The Students for Sensible Drug Policy has recently called into question a provision of the Higher Education Act that bans potential college students with drug convictions from receiving government financial aid. That financial aid ban hurts the drug offender in the long term as well as the short term, said campaign Director Tom Angell, because college students are less likely to use drugs than high school students. The ban keeps many qualified people out of college who otherwise would have graduated and contributed to society afterwards, he said. [continues 342 words]
Thousands of students denied financial aid for drug convictions, according to report Over 41,000 potential students were denied federal financial aid during the 2003-04 academic year because they either reported a drug conviction or refused to answer a question about drug convictions on their federal financial aid application, according to a Government Accounting Office report. The report, published in September, studied the impact of a provision added to the federal Higher Education Act in 1998, which added a question Free Application for Federal Student Aid asking applicants if they have ever been convicted of a drug crime. Applicants who answer yes or refuse to answer the question can be denied all federal financial aid, including Pell Grants and federal loans. [continues 567 words]
As Congress considers changes to the Higher Education Act, UC Berkeley, along with 250 organizations nationwide, is calling for an end to a provision that restricts students with past drug convictions from receiving financial aid. As an amendment of the act in 1998, the provision denies students who have been convicted of certain drug charges from receiving the benefits of Pell Grants, student loans and work study monies. But the future of the law is in jeopardy as legislators take their first steps in loosening the provision through a bill that would limit the penalty to students who commit drug crimes while in college. [continues 429 words]
Daily Staff Writer October 11, 2005 A law preventing drug offenders from receiving financial aid from the federal government is not benefiting society, according to a student advocacy group. The group, Students for Sensible Drug Policy, was reacting to a study by the Government Accountability Office released Sept. 26. The GAO study found that tens of thousands of Free Application for Federal Student Aid applicants were denied postsecondary education benefits in 2004 because of the drug provision, although that number only makes up 0.3 percent of all applicants that year. [continues 548 words]
