The Higher Education Act’s drug provision, which denies
students financial aid if they are convicted of a drug offense, is
one of the worst thought out education laws in the books today. It
is based on faulty logic, executed in a biased manner, and shows no
promise of substantial benefits outweighing the damage it
causes.
The law requires students to indicate on their Free Application
for Federal Student Aid forms whether they have prior drug
convictions; an affirmative response results in a student losing
his or her financial aid for a year. Last year alone, 29,000
students were denied federal aid under this law.
The HEA provision is based on the false notion that threatening
ineligibility for federal aid will deter drug use among young
people. It doesn’t. Prospective students don’t have to
worry about stopping drug use; they just have to make sure
they’re not caught. The provision will more likely cause many
people, who would otherwise be eligible for college admission, not
to apply because a one-time conviction for using a non-violent drug
in the past would restrict their access to federal aid they need
for school.
Proponents of the law will argue that even if a small number of
students are deterred from using drugs because of the threat of
losing financial aid, the drug provision should remain. This is an
ignorant argument. The war-on-drugs hysteria in politics today
blinds politicians and the public from fairly weighing the social
costs and benefits of the HEA drug provision; it may have stopped a
few high school kids from smoking a joint last year, but it also
stopped, or at least made it extremely difficult, for 29,000 other
people to attend college and become tomorrow’s teachers,
doctors, engineers and architects. Instead, many of them will
remain uneducated and likely continue using drugs anyway.
The law’s execution is biased. Only poor students who need
financial aid have their college careers placed on the line because
of drug use. Wealthy students can use drugs all they want; they
don’t have to worry about financial aid in order to afford
college. The law is also unfairly specific to one type of offense:
Why should a student with a drug felony, rather than a different
type of conviction, be singled out for aid disqualification?
Rep. Mark Souder, a Republican from Indiana, defends the HEA,
which he sponsored, saying the federal government has a right to
impose whatever restrictions it deems necessary on funds it
distributes. He’s right; the government can issue
restrictions on all its forms of aid. But it doesn’t have to.
Souder wants to promote more responsible citizenship by curbing
drug use, but he’s doing it by taking away the one tool
likely to make people aware of the harmful effects of drugs in the
first place: education. Where is the foresight?
The Undergraduate Student Association Council should join the
legion of student governments elsewhere that have adopted
resolutions against HEA’s drug provision.
The HEA drug provision is an illogical nightmare. Congress
should support the bill by Democratic Senator Barney Frank of
Massachusetts to repeal it. Hopefully, giving more people the means
to attend college will produce an electorate with more educated
citizens, who will select politicians who favor using federal money
to increase the quality of U.S. educational institutions ““
rather than fund a war on drugs as costly as it is
unintelligent.