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Act, which a congressional committee is expected to consider this week, the so-called "retroactivity clause" could be repealed - in other words, the government could no longer legally withhold tuition assistance from students who were convicted of drug-related offenses before they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.
Not this parent!
If my kids partied or got crummy grades, or got caught with drugs, they would be SOL. Permanently, no second chances. Period.
He can't pick up that kind of slack, but he managed to afford the drugs... And the legalization proponents say that Marijuana doesn't damage the brain... /sarcasm off
On a serious note, I say that this is a great idea. My 4 kids worked hard and stayed drug free to get through college and I don't know why we should be giving financial aid to the druggies.
Now really... if your stupid enough to be driving around with your bong on the front seat, are you REALLY college material?
And besides, whatever happened to paying for your own damn college, anyway?
Hmmm, is he sure? I used to know a grad student in a math program down in Texas who has trouble getting any work done unless he took a few puffs. He said it helped him "visualize" the math problems.
Whether it did or not, I looked him up on the internet recently, and it looks like he's done alright for himself.
The law seems inconsistent, to say the least. First of all, why a complete loss of funds? Why not treat it like a fine, deducting a certain amount of aid depending on the severity of the crime? All-or-nothing approaches are like slegdehammers, but sometimes you need a dremel tool.
I too have known many outstanding students who 'indulged' a bit during undergrad/grad school. I think this is a stupid policy.
Any bets there's already an exemption in place for illegal aliens?
Things that make you go......"Hahahahahaha!"
FMCDH(BITS)
Thats an interesting line of reasoning. Should they also deny aid to students who smoke tobacco?
First, it is "you're" not "your" in that usage. Did you get caught with a bong or a joint?? Second he had a 3.8 in high school.
I can't understand people who cannot see that this is moronic. He could have raped and pillaged, and he would get financial aid, but to get caught with a bong? MAYBE if he were dealing, but to deprive him of aid because he was catching a buzz at 18 years old is ridiculous. We want productive members of society to pay our social security, not burger flippers.
And besides, whatever happened to paying for your own damn college, anyway?
The same thing that happened to self paying your medical bills. The government got involved and the costs skyrocketed.
By his reasoning - yes. This forum goes farther downhill everyday.
Thanks for the clarification.
The thing I would like to see tied to recieving fed money is higher performance standards. I haven't perused the FAFSA policies in a while, but (correct me if I am wrong anyone), the 'satisfactory academic progress' standard was something like a 1.0 GPA to remain elliglbe for aid. Contrast that to a state grant that I recieved which required a 3.5 cumulative GPA to remain eligible.
I worked my way through college, paid for it all myself. If you want to serve off of the government, pay the consequences. Or, just get a job and work for it.
And no, never got caught with a bong, I was too busy working 40 hours a week and studying to waste my time doing it.
And no, the government doesn't pay my health insurance, either. I do that myself as well.
I don't think you understand the basic concept.
No you don't.
Well then, thanks for clearing that up so succinctly.
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.