Students with drug convictions will now lose federal financial aid under a series of amendments to the Higher Education Act.
Since July 1, 2000, the Department of Education has denied aid to thousands of students convicted of drug-related offenses. The law originally applied only to college students getting loans or aid when convicted. Under a new interpretation by the Bush administration, the law now applies to anyone convicted of any drug-related offense.
The law is beginning to draw fire from various civil-liberty groups who believe the law is discriminatory. The American Civil Liberties Union believes the law especially discriminates against African Americans and Latinos because they have higher rates of drug convictions.
Stephanie Bruce, legislative affairs assistant for the Associated Students of Madison, agrees with the ACLU.
“We (ASM) are against this law. We just went to [a legislative conference] in Washington, D.C., about this issue and lobbied for Sen. Feingold and Sen. Kohl to repeal the higher education act,” Bruce said. “This law affects minorities more. Minorities tend to be more targeted for drug offenses and have higher conviction rates.”
The ACLU is also concerned that the law is meaningless to those students who can afford college. They say students who are already pushed to the edge financially are now forced out of college.
“These students are trying to change their lives forever and this law is telling them they can’t have an education,” Bruce said. “It’s telling them they have to go back to their old lives.”
Adam Gamoran, professor of sociology at UW-Madison, believes the discrimination extends beyond race and into economic status.
“This particular approach paralyzes the poor more than the
rich,” Gamoran said. The rich can still pay for their education while the poor can’t.”
Some critics of the law have even compared it to a double
jeopardy situation wherein someone is punished twice for the same crime.
“I am opposed to the law because anyone convicted of a crime should be subject to the penalties of that crime,” Gamoran said. “Taking away their financial aid is like tacking on another punishment.”
Advocates of the law believe it is not discriminatory because it doesn’t deny anyone from attending school.
Gordon Baldwin, professor emeritus of law at UW-Madison, believes the courts will uphold the law if any cases are filed.
“The mere fact that the law is stupid doesn’t make it unconstitutional,” Baldwin said. “The courts will likely uphold it. There was a case where family planning clinics were denied federal aid on the basis of it recommending abortion. That was taken to court and the courts upheld it.”
Donald Downs, professor of political science, law, and
journalism at UW-Madison, agrees with Baldwin.
“I don’t see how the law is discriminatory in any meaningful sense,” Downs said. “I think it is silly moralism, however.”
The law works on a conviction-by-conviction basis. The type of conviction also matters. For those convicted of using drugs, each offense carries a one year suspension of aid. With each successive offensive, an additional year is tacked onto the suspension. Those with two convictions are denied aid for two years, for example.
Selling drugs carries the most serious offense. A one-time conviction carries a two-year suspension of aid while multiple convictions result in an indefinite suspension of aid.
Students can regain eligibility to aid by completing a federally approved rehabilitation program.
The ACLU was proud to point out that what they call a “glaring inequity” is already being considered for revision in Congress.
