NEWS
Students with drug charges could be denied aid
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Ann Babe:
- Legislators introduce Jessica's Law (October 20, 2005)
- Parisi seeks prison releases (October 21, 2005)
- Study: attorney general race to be close (April 13, 2006)
- Senate override succeeds (January 27, 2006)
- Republicans criticize election reform (April 6, 2005)
Related Stories:
- Bill denies financial aid to drug distributors (March 20, 2006)
- Wisconsin Senate Committee to vote on financial-aid law banning drug offenders from receiving state aid (February 5, 2004)
- Assembly seeks to deny financial aid to offenders (November 14, 2003)
- Regents under fire (October 8, 2003)
- Advocates join together to oppose bill (February 13, 2006)
Share This:
by Ann Babe
Wednesday, March 8, 2006
State lawmakers debated and approved a bill Tuesday that would deny financial aid to students convicted of possessing controlled substances with the intent of distributing.
Members of the Assembly Committee on Colleges and Universities held a public hearing on the measure, Assembly Bill 1035, before considering it in an executive session.
AB 1035 was written by Rep. Eugene Hahn, R-Cambria, in an effort to more fairly distribute financial aid to low-income students.
"You have law-abiding students that [currently] aren't eligible," AB 1035 supporter Rep. Andy Lamb, R-Menomonie, said, adding students convicted of drug possession are depriving other students of much-needed funds.
While Republican bill backers maintained the measure was a means of aligning Wisconsin law more closely with federal law — which already bans federal assistance to such convicted felons — Democratic opponents called the bill discriminatory and misdirected.
According to Steven Schuetz, of the Wisconsin Association of Student Financial Aid Administration, AB 1035 would discriminate against low- and middle-class students who would be unable to access higher education opportunities without financial assistance.
Inaccessible education, Schuetz added, may only perpetuate the cycle by promoting further drug abuse.
"The cause of many underlying social problems that predispose students to drug abuse may well be a lack of education," he said. "By denying these students financial aid, we may be contributing to the problem of drug abuse, not helping to solve it."
Opponents added the policy would be difficult to enforce, as it relies on students self-reporting their criminal history.
But Rep. Debi Towns, R-Janesville, countered enforcement is possible if administrators were to check each student's background against a criminal records database — a suggestion opponents said would be unreasonably time-consuming and costly.
"If your aim is to provide more money to the students, this would be counterproductive," Rep. Spencer Black, D-Madison, said, adding the high administrative costs would deplete the total amount of financial aid available for all students.
Lamb, however, suggested the alternative is far worse.
"How do you feel about subsidizing our tax dollars for drug dealers?" he said.
Committee members passed AB 1035 in a 7-5 party-line vote.
Anonymous (March 8, 2006 @ 8:01am):
Just forget about murderers and rapists? Yeah, that's the ticket!
Anonymous (March 8, 2006 @ 9:07am):
The bill does not discriminate agains "low and middle class" -- that statement is an insult to those in the low to middle class who do not sell drugs! It bans drug dealers from getting federal aid. Perhaps there should be a cap - say up to 5 years after the arrest. Prior to that, they can get a manual labor job.
Anonymous (March 8, 2006 @ 2:08pm):
They can get a manual labor job??? Really intelligent! Let's cut off the opportunity for these people who can't afford school and have been arrested to better their lives by getting an education. This is ridiculous, especially since there is no mention of violent crime.
How does this bill NOT discriminate against the lower class? Look at facts, the majority of those convicted of intent to deliver are lower class AND minorities...so one could say this is a bill which facilitates racial profiling.
Anonymous (March 28, 2006 @ 10:52pm):
I will tell you what I think about that idea. I think it is pathetic. I am a convicted felon and I have paid taxes all my life. I was convicted of a possession charge. I did drugs at a very early age and was introduced to them at school. I did not know right from wrong when I did them. Whos responsibility was it to protect me from drugs being in school? Am I a victim of low security or someone not doing their job? I am studying to be a licensed professional counselor. My idea is to create prevention programs in schools to help stop adolescents from doing drugs. The grant money I receive is money I paid in my taxes. Its my money. I guess I do not understand ones logic in not wanting someone to recieve grant money who is making good grades. If someone cuts off my grant money, I would probably not pay taxes ever again. How can you contribute in keeping drugs out of school's? By the way I made the deans list this semester. I have one semester left before I graduate. Whats your opinion on what I have to say? I could not think of a better way to receive my tax dollars back that I have paid into the system. Unless of course if I revoke my probation and have free housing in prison. Email you response to christangney@hotmail.com
