ACLU DEFENDS STUDENT DRUG OFFENDERS

If a recent lawsuit filed on behalf of a student organization proves
successful, college students who have been denied federal student aid
because of drug convictions may be entitled to once again receive
government aid.

On March 29 the American Civil Liberties Union filed a case in a
South Dakota federal court on behalf of the organization Students for
Sensible Drug Policy, which is seeking to repeal a drug amendment to
the Higher Education Act. The amendment, sponsored in 1998 by Rep.
Mark Souder, R-Ind., denies federal student aid such as Stafford
Loans and Pell Grants to students with drug convictions.

The SSDP claims that education penalties against students convicted
of drug charges are unconstitutional because they punish a person
twice for the same infraction, which SSDP says is a violation of the
double jeopardy clause of the U.S. Constitution's Fifth Amendment.
The organization says that because convicted drug offenders have
already been dealt with by the criminal justice system, they have
already paid their debt to society. Furthermore, the SSDP says that
putting up roadblocks between people with troubled pasts and an
education does nothing to solve our nation's drug and crime problems.
They say students who shy away from higher education because of past
drug charges are more likely to fall into drug abuse or commit
crimes, rather than become productive members of society.

Keri Meagher, a pre-med student at UAA, thinks that no matter how
many drug offenses a person has, they should not be denied a chance
to get an education.

"Many nontraditional students who try to go back to school are easily
discouraged by any kind of setback, whether it's past poor academics
or a minor drug conviction," Meagher said.

Jason Wilson, a senior economics major at UAA, also agrees with the
SSDP and ACLU's case.

"I think it's ridiculous that they won't allow students to have
student aid if they have drug convictions. Because, one-- so many
people do drugs. It's part of being a youth in America," Wilson said.
"Trying to legislate morality by limiting someone's future is a very
foolish thing, it could weed out people that might possibly be the
best and the brightest."

Supporters of the 1998 amendment say that the limited supply of
federal aid money should not be available to students who use drugs.

David Glaser and Brittany Cottrel, both sophomores majoring in
mechanical engineering, thought that while people who may have one
drug conviction should not be denied opportunities for education,
students who are repeat offenders shouldn't be eligible for federal
student aid.

"Being someone who has never used drugs, if (drug offenders) are
denied, it's easier for me to get aid," Glaser said.

Debbie Mattson, a criminal justice major at UAA, said denying a
student drug offender financial aid isn't a bad thing, because there
are many students without drug convictions who also need federal student aid.

"I think that if going to college is something a person really wants
to do, just like any student, they will overcome whatever hurdles
they have to," Mattson said.

The Department of Education says that 200,000 students each year
refrain from answering the drug conviction question included in the
Free Application for Federal Student Aid. The Department of Education
has acknowledged that they do not independently verify the truth of
those who leave the question blank. So those who leave the question
unanswered are much more likely to receive aid than those who admit
to their crime. In 2000, less than 1 percent of the 1.7 million
students who applied for federal aid admitted to a drug conviction.

According to the Government Accountability Office, during the 2001-02
to 2002-03 academic years, more than $50 million in Pell Grants and
between $100 million and $150 million in Stafford Loans were denied
to students because of drug convictions. The GAO report estimates
that the number of students affected may be higher, accounting for
students who didn't bother to apply for aid, assuming they would be denied.

The drug amendment of the Higher Education Act is a "three strikes
you're out" policy. Students who are found guilty of one charge are
ineligible to receive federal aid for one year. Students found guilty
of a second drug conviction will be denied aid for two years, and
students with a third charge are disqualified indefinitely or until
the charges are removed from their record.

In addition, students found guilty of selling drugs immediately
receive the two-year ban. If caught selling drugs again they will
also receive the indefinite ban.

As harsh as the penalties seem, there are ways for students who
attend drug rehabilitation to once again become eligible for federal
aid. According to the FASFA Web site, students who attend a drug
rehabilitation program that includes two unannounced drug tests and
is administered or recognized by a federal, state, or local
government agency may receive federal student aid.

Allan Barnes, a professor of criminology at UAA, said that his
personal opinion is that the drug amendment should be overturned.

"Young people are going to make stupid mistakes, whether it's hanging
out with bad influences, driving too fast, or experiment with drugs,"
Barnes said. "Young people should not be denied opportunities for
education based on stupid, young people making stupid, young mistakes."

However, he said in a federal court of law, the main issue will be
whether or not the drug amendment actually violates the double
jeopardy clause. While the moral issues such as the repercussions of
denying people an education may sway the judges to re-evaluate the
amendment, it comes down to how the judge interprets the
constitution. Barnes perceives that the outcome of the case could go
either way but thinks if nothing else, the ACLU is at least making
people aware of the problem.

For more information or to sign up as a plaintiff in this case,
e-mail SSDP@SSDP.org or call 202-293-4414.