STUDENTS' AID ELIGIBILITY SHOULD FACE RESTRICTIONS ISSUE

The controversial lawsuit brought against Secretary of Education
Margaret Spellings in March has initiated critical dialogue on the
merits and drawbacks of the Higher Education Act (HEA) of 1998.
Students for Sensible Drug Policy (SSDP), the American Civil
Liberties Union (ACLU) and three students convicted of drug offenses
filed the lawsuit that took issue with the student eligibility clause
of the HEA.

Currently, under the HEA "a student who has been convicted of any
offense under any federal or state law involving the possession or
sale of a controlled substance shall not be eligible to receive any
grant, loan, or work assistance" from the time of the conviction
until a year later for a first offense and two years for a second
offense. Since the enforcement of the HEA revisions of 1998, nearly
200,000 potential college students have been found ineligible for
federal financial aid.

Other than the lawsuit's claim that the statute is in violation of
the double jeopardy clause of the U.S. Constitution, the charge
brings several questions to bear: Namely, why is a drug-related
transgression the only state or federal offense implicated in the
HEA? Drugs may impact the performance and maintenance of students in
academics, but why allow persons convicted of sexual assault,
battery, theft or other crimes to apply successfully for federal
money for a college education? Those convictions are as worrisome or
even more so to the climate of an educational institution. If the
drug offense statute holds through the lawsuit, the HEA should be
revised so offenders of other state and federal laws are denied
federal financial aid as well.

The legitimacy of the statute itself is appropriate given that a drug
offense is a crime. The eligibility of a student applying for federal
financial aid should be limited by his or her past history of
indiscretion just as applying for jobs or schools is limited by those
same factors. However, it seems blatantly uneven that only one type
of crime is taken into consideration under the HEA, rather than a
plethora of offenses that threaten the well-being and safety of a
college community.

Statutes such as the one under the HEA should serve not as a
discriminatory clause or as double punishment, but rather as an
even-handed attempt to glean applicants with solid histories that
will use federal financial aid to their benefit.

Drug offenders or other offenders are not necessarily drug addicts
nor are they incapable of benefiting from federal financial aid;
however, the federal government is correct to establish student
eligibility for federal financial aid and deny those who have broken
the law. Nevertheless, such standards should be applied across the
board to include other non-drug related offenses.