Anger Mounts Over Drug Financial Aid Ban March 17, 2004
News Summary
Students and lawmakers are becoming more vocal in opposition to a federal law that prevents individuals from receiving federal financial aid for college if they have past drug convictions, the New York Times reported March 13.U.S. Rep. Mark Souder (R-Ind.), who wrote the law, said it was intended to strip financial aid from current college students who are convicted of drug use. Souder said the law was designed to discourage students from experimenting with drugs.
He blamed the Clinton and Bush administrations for misinterpreting the law and using it to punish people who are trying to turn their lives around.
To date, tens of thousands of applicants have been denied financial aid even though their drug offenses are in the past and the sentences long served.
"It is absurd on the face of it," said Souder. "I am an evangelical Christian who believes in repentance, so why would I have supported that? Why would any of us in Congress?"
The Education Department is blaming Souder and Congress for passing a vague law. Officials said they are enforcing the law, which, as written, applies to "a student who has been convicted" of a drug offense.
As the law stands, a person who serves time for murder, armed robbery, or rape can receive financial aid, while someone convicted of smoking marijuana is ineligible.
Some members of Congress are working to rewrite the law. In addition, President Bush's proposed budget calls for narrowing the scope of the law.
The language in the budget proposal would permit individuals who violated drug laws before going to college to receive financial aid, regardless of the offense. However, those in college who commit a drug offense would lose their financial aid for at least a year.
U.S. Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) said Bush's proposal would still impose harsher penalties on drug use than on any other crime.
"We should abolish the whole rule," said Frank. "Not that we should encourage drug use, but you shouldn't single that out as being worse than rape or arson or armed robbery."
COMMENTS ON THIS ARTICLE: