Congressman Mark Souder (R-Ind.) never intended for the legislation that he drafted to be so harsh. In 1998 Souder added a clause to the Higher Education Act that was supposed to strip students of federal financial aid if convicted of possessing or selling drugs while enrolled in college, not including all previous infractions. Now the Bush administration is using the provision to deny students funding if they fail to answer a question on financial aid applications about former drug offenses. "This is absolutely, 100 percent not what Congressman Souder intended," Souder spokesman Seth Becker told The Washington Post. For the 2001-2002 school year, 43,436 students were rejected funding for not answering the question about drug convictions. That number does not account for the students who did not apply at all, fearing automatic rejection. Nor does it represent the students who were denied because they had a drug offense on their record. Souder is wise to question the rigid restrictions that the Department of Education is reading into his legislation. The policy is unfair on several levels. What if someone commits murder, rape, arson or treason? The policy does not apply the same scrutiny to people who may pose a significant threat to their peers. Meanwhile others who may have once possessed a drug that is legal in another western nation may be denied funds or discouraged from seeking them. The policy also discriminates against poor people in favor of the rich. Wealthy college-bound people with the same drug convictions as the needy will not face the same barriers to college funds since they're unlikely to fill out an aid application at all. This could create the scenario of rich, delinquent students sailing into college while poor students seeking to better themselves are stuck on the dock. Punishing someone twice for a crime makes for unfair and regressive policy. One mistake during youth should not be the basis for denial of an equal opportunity to higher education. Even if the mistake indicates a pattern, rehabilitation and reform are proven to be effective, and an education would only enhance one's prospects for progress. Is our presidential administration really trying to send the message that people who struggle with controlled substances should be barred from the chance to make a significant contribution to society? As President Bush's team continues to enforce this standard, it should consider the obstacles placed on people capable of doing great things. Author Victor Hugo said, "He who opens a school door, closes a prison." Lawmakers are known for red tape and rhetorical wrestling matches. Congressman Barney Frank (D-Mass.) has introduced legislation to lift the ban on aid to people with prior drug convictions. This should be a simple matter of redrafting the semantics in a sentence so the school door is not closed on people who are making a life choice toward higher learning.
yes - no - abstain
