Thousands of college-aid applicants have been denied federal money over the last five years because they were convicted of possessing or selling drugs–a policy supporters say serves as a deterrent to drug use and ensures that aid goes to those who deserve it.
But opponents are gearing up to jettison the provision when the Higher Education Act comes up for renewal this year, arguing that education should not be used as a weapon in the war on drugs. The policy disproportionately hurts lower-income families who are least able to afford college tuition, they say, while noting that punishment for such offenses is already meted out in court.
“I don’t understand why you’d want to hinder someone’s ability to go to college,” said Caton Volk, 23, who dropped out of the University of Illinois at Chicago after he discovered he was ineligible for aid. “If the administration is really concerned about drug use, what better means of rehabilitation than education?”
More than 100 student governments have called for the policy to be revoked. Some institutions–including Yale University, Western Washington University, Hampshire College in Massachusetts and Swarthmore College in Pennsylvania–are so opposed to the policy that they will reimburse students who have lost aid because of it.
On average, about 47,000 of the 10.5 million federal-aid applicants lose their eligibility every year, according to the American Council on Education, the major coordinating body for U.S. higher education institutions.
The mere presence of the drug query on the Free Application for Federal Student Aid rankles critics.
“The financial aid form was designed to help lower- and middle-class students gain access to college–not be used as a mechanism to collect information,” said Chris Simmons of the American Council on Education. “I understand why Congress wants law-abiding citizens, but this punishment does not affect all students equally.”
Others groups–from conservative Christians to mainline anti-drug organizations–endorse the idea. “There’s no entitlement to this money,” said Sue Thau, a public policy consultant to Community Anti-Drug Coalition of America.
“By the time you’re in college, you’re old enough to know that your actions have consequences,” she said. “What it says to kids is: You’ve got a good thing going here. Don’t screw it up.”
Volk was busted for possession of marijuana in 1998, one week before he graduated from Naperville North High School. He attended UIC for one semester, with his parents paying the bills. But then his family’s financial situation changed, and his past came back to haunt him.
“[The marijuana] wasn’t a tremendous amount, just enough to keep me from pursuing a college education,” said Volk, who lives in Wicker Park. “I just took one look at the form … and that was it. I didn’t even try. Who knows how many kids just see the question [about drugs] and just forget the whole thing?”
Volk held a string of low-paying jobs before starting his own film production company. “But I still feel like I missed something,” he said. “I love the classroom experience.”
U.S. Rep. Mark Souder, an Indiana Republican and author of the 1998 provision, says he never intended to include prior offenses as a basis for denying aid. He blames the U.S. Education Department for “misinterpreting” the law.
He is proposing that when the law is reauthorized, only those students with convictions incurred while they are in college and receiving aid be affected.
Despite the widespread criticism, he said he thinks it’s the right thing to do.
“I believe that if a student is using drugs, he is probably not making the most of his education,” Souder said. “That is bad enough if he is paying for his education himself, but it is simply unacceptable if the American taxpayer is footing the bill.”
———-
Edited by Patrick Olsen (polsen@tribune.com)
