Should Drug Convictions be a Bar to Student Loans?

[lawrocket 3]

I saw this story and thought it interesting...

I think the current rule is flawed, but I will admit that financial aid is no right. I don't know where I stand on this...

LINK

Denying college aid over drugs faces fight

By Bonnie Miller Rubin Tribune staff reporter

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.

"We don't believe students should have their education interrupted," said Dorie Baker, a spokeswoman for Yale University, which took a stand even though none of its students has been affected.

Application poses question

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 the nation's higher education institutions.

The process works like this: Students must complete the Free Application for Federal Student Aid. Question No. 35 asks: "Have you ever been convicted of selling or possessing drugs?" Applications with a blank or "yes" are flagged. The applicants are then sent a letter that explains that they might not receive aid and asks some follow-up questions.

Those with one drug offense are ineligible for one year for government grants or federally backed loans; a second conviction bars applicants for two years. However, they can regain eligibility upon completion of an approved drug-rehabilitation program.

The mere presence of the drug query 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."

Steve Dnistrian,an executive with Partnership for a Drug-Free America, also believes it acts as a deterrent.

"This gives students a lot of incentive to make good decisions ... and we're for anything that reinforces social norms that help persuade young people not to use drugs," he said.

But to Marisa Garcia, the law doesn't keep her peers off drugs--only out of school. Garcia's financial aid was jeopardized in 2000 after she was caught with a marijuana pipe in her car.

"It was my first time. ... I had never even had a traffic ticket," said Garcia, 22, of Santa Fe Springs, Calif. "So I just paid my $400 fine and didn't think much of it."

After she was accepted at California State University at Fullerton, she filled out her aid application and received the bad news. "There was no way we could afford college without loans," said Garcia, one of four children of a single parent.

Only because her mother refinanced the house and received a raise at her florist job was she able to scrape together tuition, Garcia said.

"What happens to kids whose families don't have a house?" she said "It doesn't make sense to penalize young people who want to better themselves."

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."

Unintended effects

U.S. Rep. Mark E. 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.

"What is more, I strongly believe that this law will discourage drug use."

Democratic lawmakers are divided over whether they should continue to oppose this weaker version of the ban. Given the political realities, some say it is the best they can hope for. Others--including Illinois Reps. Jan Schakowsky, Jesse Jackson Jr., Danny Davis and Bobby Rush--have said nothing short of all-out repeal will do.

Matthew Atwood, a graduate student at Loyola University, feels so strongly that the law should change that he is traveling to New Hampshire this month to grill the presidential candidates on their position. (Of the nine Democratic hopefuls, only Ohio's Dennis Kucinich (news - web sites) has called for scrapping the provision.)

The Park Ridge native said the deterrent claim is dubious because the majority of young adults aren't aware the policy exists. But when they do find out, he said, they are "floored and appalled" to find out they can be denied aid for a non-violent crime.

Along with 250 other protesters, Atwood vows to be a persistent presence at a college convention in Manchester this week.

"I feel compelled to be there," he said. "If the candidates care about education than they need to care about this issue. They need to tell us how we can be smart on drugs and no longer hold education hostage."

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[mr2mk1g 10]

Over here most convictions are wiped off a persons record after a period depending on the severity of the crime. Its as if you were never convicted. (some are never wiped for obvious reasons). No one has the right to ask about spent convictions and may not act on them if they find out. EG minor drugs offence here while under 18 would be wiped off the record after 2.5 years.

Does the US legal system have a "spent" convictions system?

Not exactly a solution to your question, just curious.

[Nightingale 0]

NO!

Education funding is a completely separate issue. Like the article said "what better way to fight drug use than with education?"

[Gravitymaster 0]

A little tough to just answer yes or no. I think someone convicted of using drugs shouldn't be denied but I would stipulate drug testing while they are being tax payer subsidized. Dealing drugs is another issue.

If someone is caught with a large quantity of drugs and shows no other visible means of support, then I'm for denying them a student loan until they have served time in jail, done massive amounts of community service and agreed to mandatory drug testing.

Someone caught dealing a small amount that obviously wasn't to provide an income should still be subjected to drug testing and community service.

[kai2k1 0]

I don't believe is shoud be a bar for past drug convictions. However, if you are receiving financial aid while you are busted with drugs I feel that your financial aid should be revoked.

There's no truer sense of flying than sky diving," Scott Cowan

[lawrocket 3]

Over here, how the convictions and records are handled is almost entirely up to the respective states (unless the feds were involved, in which case the person is up a certain creek without a paddle).

The judge may determine the sentence. In some places, the judge may order community service and counseling, and upon successful completion expunge the record. In other instances, the individual must motion the court to expunge the record.

I would think that convictions as a minor would be sealed and not need to be reported in most cases. But, criminal law ain't exactly my forte..

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[LoudDan 0]

It does state that elligability can be regained after attending an approved rehab. I like the idea of losing aid if you are convicted while recieving aid (tax dollars at work).

Coming soon to a bowl of Wheaties near you!!

[ChileRelleno 0]

I think that it should depend on the severity of the crime, caught smoking a joint with some personal on you or caught selling?... How long ago did it happen?, any repeat offenses?, are also questions to be raised when applying for grants and loans.

I do think there so be a time limit on which such offenses should degrade your ability to receive benefits from the taxpayer (any benefits, grants, loans, SSI ect...), but if your a practicing addict or habitual offender then I don't think you deserve a dang thing.


I personally wouldn't (if I had a choice) pay any taxes that would go to goverment welfare programs. I don't want to support anyone else, I have a hard enough time supporting myself and my family

ChileRelleno-Rodriguez Bro#414
Hellfish#511,MuffBro#3532,AnvilBro#9, D24868

[nightjumps 1]

You give me reason to ponder. Drugs are a serious issue. I'm on my way to a funeral in about an hour. Good friend's 15 y/o daughter was found dead New Year's day - drug related.

We need to do something, but I'm not sure if removing the opportunity for change is an answer. I'm not sure if it should be one offense or two or three.

I agree with the mention of student loans being revoked if drugs are used/distributed while on a student loan.

I did not vote for fear of emotional bias. But, it is something to think about.

Edited to add: How come we can free three nations from oppression over ten years, but we can't free our children in the war on drugs?

[samhussey 0]

No way. If I had a criminal record it would be hard enough to get a decent job without being denied an education on top of that. This is not a good way to deal with crime, as it would just make the problems that drive many to crime even more prolific.

[vonSanta 0]

That'd be downright stupid and counterproductive.

"Oh, the guy has done some drugs and now wants to better his life. Let's kick and hold him down so he turns into a criminal instead and we can waste money that way!".

Our government gives both stipends and loans to all students, including non citizens. It's worked out so far. An educated population is an investment. The state'll earn more through taxes etc, so why not?

Santa Von GrossenArsch
I only come in one flavour
ohwaitthatcanbemisunderst

[quade 4]

I think there needs to be a line, but I really have no idea where that is.

What I think might be more useful and might ensure the money isn't used for buying more drugs (the obvious fear of the hard core anti-drug people) is to find a way to send the funding directly to the schools and not funnel it through the students first.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[lawrocket 3]

I think I'll agree with that concept. If financial aid is being used in connection with the purchase of drugs, then I can see a reason for stopping it.

But, would all persons caught with alcohol underaged and convicted, or DUI/Public intoxication ALSO lose their financial aid? It's a pretty tough issue, but the line has been drawn...

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Nightingale 0]

student loan money IS sent directly to the schools.

Personally, its a pain in the ass for me, because I have to wait for my school to issue a refund to me for the extra, so I can buy my textbooks!

However, I do understand why they do it. Its to make sure the money goes towards education first.

[SkydivingNurse 0]

I'm going to have to say yes, but with the following: Everyone makes mistakes, get busted for drugs once, clean up your act, move on. No one is perfect. Get busted for drugs again, then you lose the chance to get any sort of college loan aid. We all make mistakes, I've made my share of them, but I learned from them.

[samhussey 0]

But if you draw the line at one conviction, it takes away the deterrent that they're aiming for. People could just do it until they got caught once, then stop, knowing it wouldn't affect their chances at an education. There can be no half measures with these kinds of issues.

[happythoughts 0]

Drinking and driving is against the law also. What would you say about DUI convictions? Someone gets a DUI, do they get to go to college?

I consider alchohol a drug, btw. It's abuse is against the law.

[bch7773 0]

Quote

Those with one drug offense are ineligible for one year for government grants or federally backed loans; a second conviction bars applicants for two years. However, they can regain eligibility upon completion of an approved drug-rehabilitation program.

I think its kinda stupid for these kids who can't get the aid whining about how they can't get federal money for an education. it seems they would rather bitch and moan instead of completing a drug-rehab program.
even if they don't complete a drug-rehab program, they are only barred from getting aid for one year. they should just go to a community college for one year, if neccesary, get a loan from a bank for it, and then they can continue on as normal.

MB 3528, RB 1182

[happythoughts 0]

When I was in high school, my friend was busted for possession of pot. He was our National Honor Society club vp and had a scholarship to Univ of Fl engineering college.

He lost the scholarship and didn't go. It seemed kind of harsh then. It seems stupid and harsh now.

If he had been caught with a 6-pack, the cops would have laughed it off. Sure, it's against the law. How much damage are we doing to otherwise law-abiding people?

[AdD 1]

I think that sucks some serious ass. The penalties for possession of small amounts of drugs like weed are ridiculous considering weed's level of toxicity and danger. I think dealers should be denied loans, but what does a minor conviction really have to do with someone's marks and potential. If everyone who smoked weed in my university was denied financial aid or kicked out of res (as you are if you are caught or even are suspected of it) there would be entire floors that would be pretty empty. Even a significant percentage of our RA's and Campus Police have been guilty of this at one time or another.

Life is ez
On the dz
Every jumper's dream
3 rigs and an airstream

[ChasingBlueSky 0]

Quote

Drinking and driving is against the law also. What would you say about DUI convictions? Someone gets a DUI, do they get to go to college?

I consider alchohol a drug, btw. It's abuse is against the law.

I work in sales/admissions of a private college - I deal with this issue all the time. The amount of lower-income families that get denied loans/grants because of this question is astonishing. I do have one kid that just got out of jail from a DUI conviction and he is getting FA.

I have had one person that was very serious about getting into college and cleaning up his life - he went to the program mentioned in the article, and he should be receiving funding onec he has completed it. There are options.

Here is something else - if a male has served his country in the military and never filled out selective services form, he can be denied Gov't Funding.

_________________________________________
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....

[tunaplanet 0]

Of course drug convictions should negate student loans. You really need an explanation for that? Think about it for an hour or two.

Forty-two

[ChasingBlueSky 0]

Quote

student loan money IS sent directly to the schools.

Personally, its a pain in the ass for me, because I have to wait for my school to issue a refund to me for the extra, so I can buy my textbooks!

However, I do understand why they do it. Its to make sure the money goes towards education first.

They also do it to prevent people from scamming money. First time applicants need to complete 30-days of classes before a dispersment payment can be issued. There are plenty of people out there trying to use school as a way to get money they have no intention to pay back. Did you know that if enough students from a college go default on their payments, the gov't will no longer allow funds to be issued to incoming students?

_________________________________________
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....

[ChileRelleno 0]

Quote

When I was in high school, my friend was busted for possession of pot. He was our National Honor Society club vp and had a scholarship to Univ of Fl engineering college.

He lost the scholarship and didn't go. It seemed kind of harsh then. It seems stupid and harsh now.

Your friend was not only a honors student but the VP of your club, he committed a crime, albiet not a very serious crime to some folks perspective but a crime none the less... Thats not very honorable and henceforth I think it was right that he lost his scholarship. Harsh? Yes. Stupid? No. Was it stupid for him to be doing what he was doing and risking his scholarship, money and freedom? Yes!
As a VP he had a standard to uphold...

Quote

If he had been caught with a 6-pack, the cops would have laughed it off. Sure, it's against the law. How much damage are we doing to otherwise law-abiding people?

Very few police officers will laugh off possession of alcohol by a minor, a few might let it slip depending on the circumstance, but the majority are going to right you a ticket.
And your friend would probably have lost his scholarship for that too.

How much damage are "We" going to do to these people?... NONE, they do it to themselves. And they are not otherwise law abiding just because their not violent felons or some such.

I'm no angel...
I've been there and done that ( drugs, alcohol, petty crime and have been arrested) and have no one to blame but myself for my actions and the consequences. I'm not proud of my past but I learned from my mistakes and am a better person for it.

ChileRelleno-Rodriguez Bro#414
Hellfish#511,MuffBro#3532,AnvilBro#9, D24868

[ChileRelleno 0]

Quote

Here is something else - if a male has served his country in the military and never filled out selective services form, he can be denied Gov't Funding.

I've heard of that happening before, Bureaucratic red- tape at its finest! Civil servants are pretty much brainless once they hit the office.
It is easily fixed though if your willing to break out the scissors.

ChileRelleno-Rodriguez Bro#414
Hellfish#511,MuffBro#3532,AnvilBro#9, D24868