Asserting that they have a right to access government
information and data, the interest group Students for Sensible Drug
Policy sued the U.S. Department of Education last week for failing
to disclose a state-level breakdown of students who were denied
federal financial aid due to prior drug convictions.
As per the 1998 Drug Provision of the Higher Education Act,
students convicted of a state or federal drug offense are not
eligible to receive federal financial aid. This is a law Tom
Angell, campaigns director for SSDP, said the group has been
seeking to abolish for seven years.
Since the provision was passed, 175,000 applicants have been
denied financial aid on that basis, Angell said.
Erik Cooke, an SSDP legislative director, said a state-by-state
analysis of the impact of the Drug Provision is vital to inform
legislators of the law’s effect on constituents and for them
to start paying a more particular interest in it.
“When we’re in a meeting with legislators, they want
to know how this is going to affect their constituents. By
withholding this information, it is bad for our advocacy efforts to
inform Congress. It limits Congress’s ability to quantify how
the law affects citizens across the country,” Cooke said.
The specific question being addressed by the Jan. 26 lawsuit
does not involve the merits of the Drug Provision but whether the
SSDP should be charged fees for compiling and printing the
information. The Department of Education has said it will only
provide the information if the SSDP pays $4,100, but the group is
asserting its right under the Freedom of Information Act to receive
the data at no charge.
Under the FOIA, information that is “likely to contribute
significantly to public understanding of the operations or
activities of the government” can be acquired without any
fees. Whether the SSDP’s actions fall into that category is
the matter of disagreement.
In a letter to Michelle Clark, the chief information officer for
the Department of Education, SSDP Legislative Director Ross Wilson
claimed it does.
“Providing me with this information will significantly
contribute to public understanding because it will allow me to
inform policy makers, the news media and private citizens about how
the presence of the drug conviction question of the (Free
Application for Student Aid) affects applicants for aid in each
state and territory,” Wilson wrote.
But according to an e-mail sent by Stephanie Babyak, a
spokeswoman for the Department of Education, the SSDP “failed
to demonstrate that its request was in the public interest … and
that it was not primarily in the commercial interest of
SSDP.”
The standard for what is in the public interest, however, is
extremely vague, said UCLA law Professor Lynn LoPucki.
“Under these circumstances, it will simply depend on what
the judge thinks is in the public interest,” he said.
Cooke said “there’s a much bigger issue at
stake” than the $4,100 fee ““ group members assert it is
a question of the public’s right to know and say the Drug
Provision is harmful to students denied financial aid and the
nation as a whole.
“Denying access to education is only going to make our
national drug problem worse,” Angell said.
But Babyak’s tone about the provision was very
different.
“In 1998 Congress decided that they didn’t want
federal taxpayer-funded student aid going to students convicted of
drug offenses,” she said in an e-mail.
Though Cooke was optimistic about the lawsuit, LoPucki pointed
to difficulties the case may face in the District of Columbia,
where it is being tried.
“They are in the worst district in the country, … in the
D.C. circuit, and that is the place (Freedom of Information Act)
cases are least likely to succeed.”
With reports from Sara Taylor, Bruin senior staff.