Drug law leaves some without aid

Enforcement of a 1998 amendment to the Higher Education Act restricting students with drug convictions from receiving federal financial aid is continuing to provoke controversy. Some critics say the law is misapplied, while others say it's inherently flawed and should be repealed.\nThe original amendment, sponsored by Rep. Mark Souder, from Indiana's 4th District, said, "A student who has been convicted of any offense ... involving the possession or sale of a controlled substance shall not be eligible to receive any grant, loan or work assistance." This is for a period ranging from one year for the first offense to indefinitely for the third offense.\nLast year, Hampshire College in Massachusetts authorized the use of school funds to reimburse students who lost financial aid because of the law. Later that year, a conference on that campus organized by the Washington-based Students for Sensible Drug Policy (SSDP), discussed the impact of the law on higher education. Since the conference, both Yale University and Swarthmore College have authorized funds for similar use.\nShawn Heller, the National Director of SSDP, called his group's efforts to reimburse students a "stopgap measure."\n"We're trying to help these students out while we can ... ultimately, we're trying to get this law repealed," Heller said.\nBut a representative of IU's Office of Student Financial Assistance said no such approach is being discussed at IU, mainly because the issue rarely arises.\n"There's almost nobody involved," said associate director for client services Bill Ehrich. \nEhrich estimated "less than five" IU students had been affected by the law in the last several years.\n"We almost never have anybody who applies for aid who answers yes to that question, who actually means yes," Ehrich said, referring to the confusion that sometimes stems from the wording on the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA).\n"This happens so seldom that it's not really an issue ... It really has not had an enormous effect," Ehrich said.\nSteve Dillon is affiliated with the Indiana chapter of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML), and is on the national board of directors. He disputed the notion that IU students weren't affected.\n"I would have every reason to think there are IU students affected by the Higher Education Act," he said. "I can't imagine IU wouldn't be interested in helping kids go to college."\nAfter the amendment was passed in 1998, a question was added to the FAFSA asking if a student had been convicted of a drug-related offense. For the first few years after the question was added, many applicants left it blank, in part due to the confusing wording of the original question. According to information from the NORML, 13 percent of applicants left the question blank in 2000, and the U.S. Education Department decided not to hold up processing of the forms. But last year, the Education Department revised the question and began denying aid to applicants who left it blank.\nThe question itself has drawn criticism from one of the original sponsors of the bill. Rep. Souder has challenged the inclusion of the question on the FAFSA, claiming the original purpose of the bill was to render students already receiving federal aid ineligible if convicted of a drug offense, not prevent those convicted in the past from applying for aid.\n"That question should never have been there," said Seth Becker, a spokesman for Souder. "The frustrating thing is that we thought the language on there was pretty clear to start out with. This was not a controversial thing when it passed in 1998."\nSouder and Rep. Gregory Meeks, (D-NY), proposed a new amendment in February that reworded the original amendment. The bill was referred to the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, then sent to the Subcommittee on 21st Century Competitiveness earlier this month.\nOthers, both in and out of Congress, oppose the bill in any form. Rep. Barney Frank, (D-MA), introduced a bill in February that would repeal the ban altogether. It was also referred to the Subcommittee on 21st Century Competitiveness in April.\n"Someone who commits murder or armed robbery is not automatically barred from financial aid eligibility," Frank said in a press release, "but if you have even one non-violent drug conviction you can't get any aid for a year ... this will help ensure that people in low to moderate income families -- who really need the aid -- are not treated unfairly."\nHeller estimated that 85,000 students have been denied aid since the law was passed.\n"This is a clear cut example of the war on drugs gone too far," he said.