Imagine getting caught with a pipe only containing marijuana residue. Imagine you're also receiving a substantial financial aid package from the federal government so that you can attend Tufts, one of the highest priced universities in the country. Now imagine that the drug charge - often treated as a misdemeanor in Medford and Somerville and punishable by a small fine - will ultimately force you to leave Tufts.
For thousands of students, this situation became an alarming reality last year.
In 1998, when Congress passed its revised Higher Education Act (HEA) - a bill that has been around and updated every four years since the '60s - it added a little-known provision to the standard fare. The revised bill states that anyone applying for federal student aid, which amounted to over 9.8 million students for the 2000-2001 school year, with a drug conviction of any kind - from possession in trace amounts to high-volume trafficking - would be denied all forms of federal aid.
"It's unprecedented legislation," said Shawn Heller, who heads Students for Sensible Drug Policy (SSDP), an organization that positions students against supporters of what is known as the War on Drugs. "It's a roadblock to education."
The drug provision for federal student aid, devised by Rep. Mark Souder (R-Ind.), passed fairly easily through the legislative processes in the fall of 1998. Some opponents to the legislation maintain that former president Bill Clinton's sex scandal may have overshadowed what otherwise would have been intense scrutiny of the provision in Congress - the House had just voted to begin an impeachment inquiry against Clinton around the same time. Clinton himself said in a Rolling Stone interview (12/28/00) that he does not support legislation denying college loans to students with drug convictions, though he did not veto the provision.
In fact, according to Angela Flood, Souder's chief of staff, the Clinton administration is to blame for what has become a public outcry over denial of federal aid. Souder did not write the provision with the intention of denying aid to students who were not receiving federal assistance at the time of their drug conviction, she said. However, that is the current Department of Education (DOE) policy.
"The Department of Education under President Clinton implemented [the provision] incorrectly," Flood said, adding that any concerns of ambiguity by the DOE should have been addressed to Souder.
Flood also said that Souder is currently trying to push legislation to effectively clarify the provision.
SSDP and its subset, the Coalition for HEA Reform, argue that the provision is still too specifically targeted to do any good - they argue that the law will only affect those that can't afford the full price of college. It also does not make similar exclusion of aid to those with other criminal charges, meaning that convicted rapists and murderers - assuming they're not in jail - will face no similar hurdles in getting the federal government to finance their college educations.
Flood claims that, while these are valid concerns, there is nothing stopping anyone else in Congress from writing a bill that would expand the range of crimes to include those of a more heinous variety. Souder, she says, only was interested in targeting drug use. "I think the people that raise that objection are certainly welcome to include [their own] provision," Flood said.
Some also argue that the law makes it harder - not easier - to educate the next generation of Americans. A one-time experiment with drugs could stand in the way of a college education, regardless of whether the offender fully carries out the punishment set by the judge. "It's double jeopardy," Heller said. "You already pay your debt to society [with the court sentence]."
Heller also takes issue with the racial inequalities he feels the legislation propagates. According to the most recent (1999) National Household Survey on Drug Abuse (NHSDA) survey, the rates of current illicit drug use are 6.6 percent of whites, 7.7 percent of blacks, 10.6 percent of Native Americans, 6.8 percent for Hispanics, 11.2 percent of multi-racial people, and 3.2 percent of Asians. Because whites constitute a larger part of the population, the majority of drug users are white, though blacks account for the majority of drug convictions in the US. According to the Drug Reform Coordination Network, black offenders comprise almost two-thirds of all drug convictions.
Some argue that a bill blocking federal aid for these types of convictions will prevent non-whites from access to higher education. "It's extending a bias in the justice system to the educational system," said Coalition representative Adam Eidinger.
Flood responds that these remarks are themselves racist. Applying statistics about the race that receives the majority of drug convictions - which Flood says is arguable in any case - to an individual applying for federal aid is a blatant example of racism, according to Flood.
"The bottom line is, if you don't use or sell drugs, you have nothing to worry about," she said.
Eidinger believes that it is a major problem that the provision has not received sufficient attention across the country. While undoubtedly hard hitting - close to 9,000 students were denied aid based on previous drug charges in the past year alone, according to the Department of Education - the group feels a need to spread the word.
Although over 50 student governments nationwide, including nearby Amherst, Wesleyan, Brandeis, and Bates, have recommended a revision of the drug provision, the Tufts Community Union (TCU) Senate has not yet discussed a resolution.
Senate treasurer Michele Shelton was not aware of the provision or the growing movement against it. "As far as I know, it hasn't been brought up in the Senate," she said.
Senate president David Moon had also not previously heard of the provision, but believes that it is an issue that the Senate may explore. "I would love to get behind an effort to lobby against [a bill like] that," he said.
Eidinger calls SSDP "the fastest-growing group on college campuses." These SSDP chapters, along with the student governments, are also proposing a reform of the Higher Education Act, while maintaining unanimous support of Rep. Barney Frank's (D-MA) legislation calling for a complete repeal of the HEA provision. A similar bill was introduced - but never passed - by Frank last year, though the topic continues to attract attention. Fifteen days after it was introduced this February, Frank's bill had attracted 29 co-sponsors.
The congressman remains optimistic in the face of more opposition - generally from Republicans, he says - this time around. "It's always better to repeal something like this after it bites you in the ass, which it has," Frank said, referring to the surprise impact of the provision. "At this point, the dynamic depends on students in their district."
But student activists aren't the only ones supporting Frank's legislation. The National Association of Student Financial Administrators (NASFAA), as well as the Massachusetts association (MASFAA), back the proposal. Director of Financial Aid William Eastwood, a member of both organizations, agrees that the drug provision isn't such a great idea.
"It puts us in the role of law enforcer, which we're not," he said.
Although Eastwood claims he doesn't know anyone at Tufts affected by the provision, he says he will still try to meet a student's financial need, even if he or she was denied federal aid based on a prior drug conviction. "To what extent that we have Tufts funds available, we'd still try to meet their need," Eastwood said.
After an editorial against the drug provision ran in USA Today (6/13/00), Souder, the original architect of the legislation, stood by his decision. Souder wrote a letter to the publication, arguing that the American public should not expect its government to use tax money on students associated with drugs.
"Students who spend their time and money using drugs or selling them to others obviously aren't focused on learning," he wrote. "[T]he law sends a clear message: Actions have consequences, and using or selling drugs will ruin your future."
According to another Rolling Stone article (3/15/01), Robert S. Weiner, spokesman for the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) has ignored the actions of SSDP, saying, "All they want to do is legalize drugs."
