Opinion
State aid not meant for drug dealers
Looking for a print version?
Simply use your browser’s ‘Print’ command and a printer-friendly document will be generated automatically.
Also by Ryan Masse:
- Count down to Keith Olbermann's irrelevant exit (November 12, 2008)
- Health plan losing steam (October 29, 2008)
- ACORN unintentionally fraudulent (October 16, 2008)
- Biden versus Palin: debate to watch (October 2, 2008)
- Anti-Palin talk emboldens GOP (September 18, 2008)
Sharing tools:
E-mail this article:
When it comes to state support for higher education, things just aren't like they used to be. We were reminded of that fact again yesterday, when the State Higher Education Executive Officers Association reported that Wisconsin experienced a 16 percent drop in higher education funding per student between 2001 and 2005. Nationally, meanwhile, state support is at a 25-year low.
Although it would certainly be nice to see a greater priority be placed on education in the state and country, the data does reinforce the need for public universities to make wise decisions with their increasingly meager bankrolls — something many institutions have struggled to achieve.
That's why it was nice to see the Wisconsin Assembly pass a bill recently that would revoke state financial aid from students if they are convicted of "possessing, with intent to manufacture, distribute, or deliver, or of manufacturing, distributing, or delivering" controlled substances. Dealing drugs, in other words.
No, it won't solve the fiscal woes facing the University of Wisconsin. Not even close. But it will lead to a tad more equitable distribution of higher education funds: with those convicted of drug dealing no longer receiving taxpayer money to attend the university, law-abiding students who could otherwise could not afford an education may be able to instead.
But first, let's first look at what the bill, AB1035, is not. It is not a law that seeks to punish someone for being caught with a small amount of pot at a party during their junior year in high school. The law would only apply to those who are convicted after having already been accepted to receive financial aid. This corresponds with a similar provision enacted by Congress in regards to federal financial aid.
This is also not a bill that would punish a student who gets caught once using a drug once recreationally. It applies only to those who possess controlled substances with the intent to distribute.
In other words, it would apply to a very narrow group of criminal offenders — ones the state of Wisconsin should have no obligation to subsidize. This doesn't aim to punish a student for life just because he committed a misdemeanor one time three years ago.
Financial aid is an investment by the state. As with any investment, the state wants to net a good return, and moreover, minimize the risk it incurs by subsidizing someone's education. If a student doesn't take school seriously, or if he or she shows little ability to handle the rigors of higher education, then it becomes uncertain that the state will ever reap any benefit from sending someone to college.
And there are indeed important reasons for the state to send kids to college. Namely, the state seeks to produce well-trained, educated young people who will later join the workforce and contribute in a variety of fields as part of the next generation of Wisconsin leaders. Highly educated workers are increasingly important for the vitality of a state's economy, especially in a place like Wisconsin that has long suffered the ill effects of the 'brain-drain.'
Overcoming that condition is an effort in which drug dealers play no role. In fact, dealers work counterproductively to the reversal of the brain drain, because not only do they hurt themselves, but they also potentially wreak havoc on the lives of all the students with which they do business.
In short, drug dealing has no place on college campuses, and this bill is a rational solution that actively discourages its practice.
Many Democrats in the Assembly disagreed, saying the bill would punish people a second time for making a mistake when criminal sanctions are enough, and that it would.
Yet, there's no short amount of irony to be found there, because the people who protest AB1035 are the same ones who constantly point to the perilous condition of financial aid and higher education funding in this state and country.
For instance, take state Rep. Spencer Black, D-Madison, who has been a longtime supporter of increasing accessibility to higher education. He deserves praise for those efforts, but he sends a decidedly mixed message through his opposition to AB1035.
Don't worry, Joe Prospective Student, Mr. Black wants to increase your access to the university. But not if it means he might have to stop giving state money to convicted drug dealers!
Mr. Black may not agree with me, but given the choice between subsidizing the education of someone who deals drugs and someone who doesn't, I'll take the latter. I'm sure Wisconsin taxpayers will side with me on that one.
Like it or not, financial aid is like any other finite resource. It has to be rationed in some manner. So let's make sure it's going to the students who truly deserve it.
Ryan Masse (rmasse@badgerherald.com) is a senior majoring in political science and economics.
4 Comments | Leave a comment
Leave a comment
Herald Blogs
The Beat Goes On
Brother Ali makes an ‘Exclusive’ stop
Muckrakers
Report: Barrett to make decision by the end of the week
Extra Points
Top Classified Ads (view all)
HOUSES FOR Fall 2010. All houses are on W Dayton or N Bassett. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, or 8 bedrooms. All have parking. madisoncampusrentals.com
Mr. Naivety,
Great idea!!! Let's cut off the principle way someone with a drug problem can turn their life around...with an education!
Most of these "drug dealers" are likely people who have drug problems and are prosecuted as dealers due to the definition of who is and isn't a drug dealer, not by who is actually selling drugs. The definition is arbitrarily and beurocraticaly drawn between simple possesion and intent (weight, grade, etc.). These definitions have also been proven to be racially motivated (see crack v. cocaine), designed to prosecute, and now deny an education to, minorities. How does denying these people with drug problems an education help our society? Think about it, a majority of people who get aid cannot afford school on their own, so they will not re-enroll if convicted. So you suggest we send them back where they came from to teach them a lesson? Drug users, without an education, have a very large chance of continuing to use drugs and ultimately doing more harm to society than if we would encourage them to change by giving them steps to take to better their lives such as an education.
The naive and assuming tone of this article along with the lack of beneath-the-surface understanding of the subject on which you wrote angers me. Do some research or risk being read with the same credibility as Bill O'Reilly.
So it's okay to buy and use pot, but not to sell it? Then where will the casual user obtain his vice?
Isn't "possessing with intent to distribute" is based on how much you have on hand? Weed will get you thru times of no money better than money will get you thru times of no weed.
Crucify the guy with a bag of weed, but murder, rape or child abuse - these crimes are acceptable to the anti-drug fascists?
Don't punish the dealer, just the pusher.
***
You know the dealer, the dealer is a man
With the love grass in his hand
Oh but the pusher is a monster
Good God, he's not a natural man
The dealer for a nickel
Lord, will sell you lots of sweet dreams
Ah, but the pusher ruin your body
Lord, he'll leave your, he'll leave your mind to scream
God damn, The Pusher
God damn, God damn the Pusher
I said God damn, God, God damn The Pusher man