The U.S. Department of Education has recently been hit by a
series of lawsuits from groups seeking to repeal a policy that
prevents college students who have been convicted of drug offenses
from receiving federal financial aid.
The first suit concluded last week when the Department of
Education agreed to provide Students for Sensible Drug Policy, one
of the groups opposing the policy, with data on the effects of the
law ““ broken down by state ““ and waived the $4,000 fee
the department had initially planned to charge.
The group filed a lawsuit in January asserting that it had a
right under the Freedom of Information Act to access the
information for free.
The second suit was filed jointly by the American Civil
Liberties Union and Students for Sensible Drug Policy last week and
asserts that the law is unconstitutional.
The Department of Education could not comment on the specifics
of either case for legal reasons.
The policy is based on a 1998 decision by the U.S. Congress that
taxpayer dollars should not be used to give aid to students who
have been convicted of a drug offense.
Since the law was put into effect in 2000, 200,000 people
nationwide have been denied federal aid for this reason, said Kris
Krane, executive director of the student group.
Chad Von Ins, financial aid adviser at the UCLA Financial Aid
Office, said few of those denied have been UCLA students.
“We don’t usually get students that fall into that
category,” he said, adding that the number was so few it was
not a significant consideration for the office.
One reason for this could be that students with drug
convictions, knowing they will not receive financial aid, do not
even bother to apply, said Tom Angell, campaigns director for the
student group.
Many students with drug convictions “never even completed
an application,” he said.
Angell added he hopes the recently acquired data will be used by
legislators to write “more intelligent laws” because it
will give them more specific information about how their state is
affected by the law.
But more than providing a means to continue their efforts toward
changing the government’s policy, Angell said he sees the fee
waiver as a victory in itself.
The group’s successful campaign for the waiver has shown
that “representatives in Congress, financial aid
administrators and parents are opposed to this law,” he
said.
A major point of contention about the policy is that it targets
applicants with drug offenses but not students with other criminal
convictions.
“They don’t ask if you are a rapist or if
you’ve killed anyone,” Von Ins said. “I think
it’s a little ironic.”
Members of the student group, the ACLU and other groups who
oppose the law also see it more broadly as a question of fairness
and have been working to repeal the law since it was passed.
One problem, according to members of the student group and ACLU,
is that the policy is an ineffective way to combat the problem of
drug abuse.
“There are better ways to keep people from drugs,”
and one of the most effective ways is through education, said Allen
Hopper, senior staff attorney with the ACLU’s Drug Law Reform
Project.
Hopper cited the pursuit of academic goals and extracurricular
activities, which are facilitated through attending college, as a
way to reduce student drug abuse that would be more effective than
the current policy.
The student group has also been working to repeal the policy
because members believe it prevents low-income students with drug
offenses from attending college while it does not have the same
effect on wealthier students with the same types of
convictions.
“The law is completely discriminatory based on
income,” Angell said. “Rich students who need no
financial aid are not affected.”