[an error occurred while processing this directive]

LATEST SUBMISSIONS

End the Aid Elimination Penalty

Wednesday, March 14 at 12:01 AM

By Brooke Malcolm and Amanda Broz

The Higher Education Act of 1965 was intended to broaden access to college education by providing financial support to eligible students and institutions. What resulted was our modern federal financial aid system, which includes all types of need-based resources such as Pell grants, low-interest loans and federal work-study. For lower- and middle-class students, these forms of assistance put a post-secondary education within their reach.

However, when the act was reauthorized in 1998, a provision that directly contradicts the original spirit of the law was adopted. Now dubbed the Aid Elimination Penalty, the amendment effectively strips federal financial aid from students convicted of any drug crime — even simple possession. Admission of a conviction or failure to answer on the Free Application for Federal Student Aid form automatically renders the student ineligible for aid, regardless of financial need. To date, approximately $200 million has been withheld from nearly 200,000 students nationwide, which does not include an unknown number of students who did not apply for fear of rejection.

Compounding this issue is the administration of state need-based aid, particularly in states like Colorado. The Colorado Commission on Higher Education takes advantage of the federal aid processing system to determine students’ eligibility for state funding. This translates to automatic ineligibility for students with drug convictions, despite the fact that Colorado has adopted no statute to that effect. Nearly 2,500 applicants in Colorado have been deprived of all need-based aid as a result of this administrative loophole.

If the argument to keep financial aid from drug offenders seems appropriate, first consider a few things. Murderers, rapists, child molesters, spouse abusers, and arsonists are all eligible for federal and state money for their education if they choose to apply. An underage college student who drives drunk and kills another driver does not lose need-based awards. Conversely, a student meeting federal enrollment and grade-point average requirements who chooses to use an illicit drug will lose educational funding if prosecuted.

Ultimately, people who do not complete a college education are less productive members of society. A college graduate earns significantly more money throughout a lifetime, returns more money to the tax base, and is better informed about issues and events than a nongraduate. Students who are denied aid cannot afford to pay for their education and many are forced to drop out. While some return to college, others are kept in lower income brackets, forced into low-wage jobs, require support from public assistance programs, and, in the worst cases, fall victim to a lifetime of substance abuse or addiction.

It is undeniably in the best interests of this country to facilitate completion of higher education. The impact of the Aid Elimination Penalty is obvious: We are condemning our most motivated students — our future — to punishment above and beyond what is already allowed through the criminal court system. This provision is a blatant violation of our constitutional Fifth Amendment right to due process, not to mention that our economy and global viability are damaged each time a student is blocked from receiving an education.

Voters and taxpayers must call upon our state legislators and the Commission on Higher Education and demand that a new system be adopted for state financial aid processing — one that does not unfairly target students with drug convictions. We must also call upon Congress to repeal the Aid Elimination Penalty altogether.

More information on this issue and others is available from Students for Sensible Drug Policy at Colorado State University by e-mail at ssdpcsu@gmail.com or from the Coalition for Higher Education Act Reform at raiseyourvoice.com.

Brooke Malcolm and Amanda Broz are the co-founders of Students for Sensible Drug Policy at Colorado State University.

READER COMMENTS

.....Funny, that one of the authors does illegal drugs, and has brothers that are convicted of drug charges, wonder why she is against this law......

Posted by Life Isnt Fair on May 22, 2007 11:34 AM

"The authors are correct in that an education is the best way out of the drug culture so that denying aid to anyone who has been caught up in drugs is essentially condemning these young people to a life of poverty or worse."

Art:
Education, maybe. College education, I'm not so sure about that. You're telling me that these people are so weak that if they don't get into college they are "doomed" to poverty? Do you think that is perhaps a slightly dramatic statement? Besides, I think sending someone with a drug problem to college, where drug and alcohol abuse is common, is probably the last thing this person needs.

"How unfortunate that our desire to punish becomes a tool whereby we can ensnare our young people."

Yes, there are consequences in life. Drug use is illegal. The law says don't use drugs or you'll be punished. Knowing this, someone still uses drugs. Now, this person finds it hard to get free money from the same government he thumbed his nose at. He may not be able to go to college, but he has learned a valuable lesson: all actions have consequences.

Posted by John on March 14, 2007 12:11 PM

"If the argument to keep financial aid from drug offenders seems appropriate, first consider a few things. Murderers, rapists, child molesters, spouse abusers, and arsonists are all eligible for federal and state money for their education if they choose to apply."

So, let's adjust the law to ban those offenders as well. I'm tired of being told my hard-earned tax dollars need to go towards subsidizing college tuition. It's bad enough that these kids take up binge drinking, drug use, and promiscuous sex while they are supposedly learning. Why subsidize students who have already proven bad judgment by using illegal drugs, despite my hard-earned tax dollars spent on attempts to dissuade them from using drugs.

College has become a place of extreme political correctness and extreme partying. It is not fair to those students who do not use drugs, who are striving to learn and contribute to society rather than clog it's judicial system with foolish unlawful behavior.

"Students who are denied aid cannot afford to pay for their education and many are forced to drop out. While some return to college, others are kept in lower income brackets, forced into low-wage jobs, require support from public assistance programs, and, in the worst cases, fall victim to a lifetime of substance abuse or addiction."

No one is "kept" in low income brackets. There are consequences to your actions. If you are convicted on drug charges, getting into college is not your only problem. Many employers will not hire you either. You have made things tougher on yourself because of your foolishness. But, it's not the end of the world. You are not doomed to a future of substance abuse because you didn't get college tuition assistance. It just means you have to work harder to reach your goals. Keep this in mind: the richest man in the world does not have a college degree.

Posted by John on March 14, 2007 11:55 AM

This is another side of the insanity of the "War on Drugs". The authors are correct in that an education is the best way out of the drug culture so that denying aid to anyone who has been caught up in drugs is essentially condemning these young people to a life of poverty or worse. How unfortunate that our desire to punish becomes a tool whereby we can ensnare our young people.

Posted by Art on March 14, 2007 08:08 AM