Posted on 07/18/2005 12:38:06 PM PDT by Diana in Wisconsin
Financial aid loss under review
WASHINGTON - When 20-year-old Nathan Bush was pulled over in Kenosha last October with drug paraphernalia plainly visible in his car, he lost his driver's license - and tens of thousands of dollars in financial aid.
Bush, an incoming junior at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, said he could have been slapped with the far more serious charge of possession of marijuana, but instead had all of his federal dollars taken away in courtroom negotiations.
"Of course, I can't pick up that kind of slack," Bush said, adding that state aid covers only about half of the $15,000 a year he pays for his education. "So it all just falls on my parents, which I'm not proud of. But I just can't come up with that kind of money."
According to Students for a Sensible Drug Policy, the federal government since 1998 has refused educational aid to more than 160,000 students like Bush, including many who were convicted of drug-related offenses before their initial application for aid.
As part of this year's reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, which a congressional committee is expected to consider this week, the so-called "retroactivity clause" could be repealed - in other words, the government could no longer legally withhold tuition assistance from students who were convicted of drug-related offenses before they filed their first application.
Tom Angell of SSDP said the measure is inadequate and called for broader legislation that would loosen the restrictions on students, like Bush, who are convicted while in school.
"While we welcome the change and think that it will help many students, there are still others who will be losing their aid," Angell said. "It's sort of like putting a Band-Aid on a gaping wound."
Rep. Tammy Baldwin, D-Madison, is one of 68 co-sponsors of a bill supported by the student group that would abolish the government's right to deny financial aid based on drug-related offenses, even if a student is convicted while enrolled in college.
Baldwin called the current law "incredibly inconsistent" because it targets even the most casual of drug users while ignoring convictions for violent crime.
"There's no prohibition on somebody who has been convicted of rape or murder," Baldwin said. "In practice, this is most likely to affect somebody who had one instance of illegal behavior during their youth."
Margaret Reiter, president of the UW-Madison chapter of the student group, added that many students probably don't report drug convictions because they doubt the Department of Education will investigate their past.
"It's only the honest students who are going to get punished," Reiter said. "They think it would be a huge waste of time and money for the government to go checking them out."
The original law that allowed the Department of Education to "suspend eligibility for drug-related offenses" was passed seven years ago as part of the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, which was originally crafted in 1965 to facilitate college education for low-income and minority students.
Rep. Mark Souder, R-Ind., introduced the drug-related provision. Souder spokesman Martin Green said the logic behind the legislation is quite simple.
"Students who receive taxpayer dollars to go to college are not making the most of it by taking drugs," Green said. "It's one thing if they're paying for their education or if their parents are paying for it, but it's unfair to ask taxpayers to foot the bill for a student with a drug habit."
The bill was also designed, Green said, as a preventative measure under the assumption that students hoping to receive financial aid would be less likely to use and sell drugs.
Angell takes issue with this reasoning, arguing that "the provision is only a deterrent to recovery and education."
Souder and Angell agree, however, on one surprising point. Green said Souder, as an Evangelical Christian who believes strongly in redemption, never intended for the bill to behave retroactively and neither did the two chambers of Congress when they passed it. That interpretation of the enforcement plan was made, he said, by the Clinton administration just before the bill was signed into law.
"Congressman Souder was outraged, of course, when the enforcement regulations were released, and he's been working ever since then to overturn that provision," Green said. "He's pleased that he has bipartisan support to restore the original intent of Congress."
Under the original bill, a student convicted of a drug-related crime was disqualified for financial aid from the date of conviction until a date determined based on number of prior convictions and nature of the crime. A student convicted of possession of a controlled substance for the first time, for example, loses eligibility for one year while a student caught selling for the second time is disqualified indefinitely.
Green said the language was not intended to exclude students applying for financial aid after their convictions, regardless of how recently they were in court.
But like Angell, Bush said he feels "hurt" by the measure as a whole and will continue to oppose it, whether or not it behaves retroactively.
"I just feel like there's no compassion in that law," Bush said. "It's just one strike and you're out. There are a lot of smart kids who smoke marijuana at Madison, and they're going to lose their money just for that? It really hurts me."
Bush, who graduated high school in Paddock Lake with a 3.8 GPA and considers himself a good student as a kinesiology and nutritional science major, said he attends weekly drug court and counseling sessions and is now drug free. He added that he is not sure when he will regain his financial aid but emphasized that he is eager to. He feels guilty, he said, because his parents already paid his legal bills on top of financing his sister's college education.
"I'll just keep applying every year and hoping," Bush said.
One reason among DOZENS why my CongressLesbian has to GO! Grrrrr!!
"Of course, I can't pick up that kind of slack," Bush said, adding that state aid covers only about half of the $15,000 a year he pays for his education. "So it all just falls on my parents, which I'm not proud of. But I just can't come up with that kind of money."
This slack-brained "university" type will not learn any lesson from that scenario. His parents should say, Gee, sorry, DUDE, but you're going to have to drop out, go to work, and save up the money."
Ten years from now, they'll wish they had done just that.
That was wrong to take away his financial aid. How is he going to buy more drugs?! (sarc)
But at least it's a step in the right direction.
Many long ages ago, when I was an undergrad at UW-Madcity, I believe you could be ejected from the university for *not* possessing the minimum required drug paraphenalia.
You know they focused on this one case primarily because the students last name was BUSH...
I wonder if they do the same for underage drinkers? If not they should because alcohol is a both more dangerous and likely to be abused.
Oh. You noticed that, too? ;)
The underlying problem here is the insane cost of college education, which has been driven to dizzying heights -- FAR outstripping the rate of inflation -- due to federal student aid, which has removed the university from market forces.
As long as the government provides such hefty amounts of financial aid, universities can pretty much charge whatever they want, which means that most kids cannot afford tuition without government financial aid, which means that universities can pretty much charge whatever they want..........
I wonder why the government considers drug use to be worse than rape?
Bingo. And also it's the same reason with Medicare that it results it higher medical costs. When people don't care how much something costs, because somebody else is paying the bill, this is what you get.
Exactly.
What other criminal offenses also lead to the pulling of finanacial aid packages?
Since there is not an unlimited supply of financial aid, this is as good a way as any to decide how the funds are allocated.
I hope this is a good lesson to college kids to keep their paraphernalia out of plain sight. I'd recommend a nice little box made out of teak (with a nice green shell inlay depicting a large marijuana leaf) that can be stashed under the seat.
Just a suggestion!
Fairly or unfairly, the moral of the story, is that if you take the King's coin you do the King's bidding.
If it targeted all criminals I could understand it but this is bullshit. Plenty of the people here that will applaud this experimented with drugs in the 60s, 70s, and 80s and didn't get caught and now they are playing hardass with someones future. Either take it away for everyone who has ever commited a misdemeanor or no one. If you are D&D no financial aid - get caught with a joint no financial aid. Let's be fair
Because if they prosecuted rape, it would wreak havoc on NCAA sports.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.