Students can be denied aid as a result of drug use
Recently passed federal drug policy denies financial aid to more than 180,000 students convicted of drug use.
In 2000, FAFSA (the Free Application for Federal Student Aid) added Question 31, which asks if the applicant has ever been convicted of possessing or selling illegal drugs.
If the answer is yes, then that person could lose their federal financial aid. Proponents of the reform argue that students who use drugs are not making the most of their education.
Meanwhile, opponents argue that the policy is not only ineffective, but that it is unfair and unnecessary.
Even though more than 180,000 students have been denied aid, reform advocates argue that because most schools base qualifications for aid on the FAFSA, it has potentially denied financial aid to even more students.
This does not even include students who never complete the form due to prior drug conviction who doubt their chances to qualify.
But the system is entirely self-reporting, so a person will only lose their aid if they choose to report themselves, assert advocate from SSDP (Student for a Sensible Drug Policy).
“This is one of the most honest student bodies I have ever worked with,” said Judy LeCheminant, the director of Financial Aid at USU. “In all my years here, I have only had two students lose their aid and they re-qualified for aid with proof of rehabilitation.”
A spokesman from the USU police said there were 18 drug-related arrests on campus last year.
Though not every arrest translates into a conviction, it is rare that a student reports their own crime to FAFSA when the administrators have no way of knowing whether or not that student was convicted.
According to statistics released by the Department of Education, 1,151 potential students in Utah have lost aid.
Tom Angell from Students for a Sensible Drug Policy’s national headquarters said, “It kicks honest, hard-working students out of school and puts them in a position were they return to drugs.”
Proponents of policy argue that government aid is an investment in the students and citizens and those who abuse illegal drugs do not deserve government tax dollars.
Mark Souder, Representative from Indiana, who proposed the legislation in 1998 stated, “Getting funding aid is a privilege, not a right. Many Americans never go to college. The very least that can be expected of those who use the tax dollars of those who do not attend college is to follow the law,”
But Angell disagrees, saying, “Murderers and rapists are still qualified for federal financial aid, but you aren’t eligible if you got caught smoking a joint.”
Some argue that students convicted of drug-related crimes pose a danger to the campus.
“That’s what we have a legal system for, the punishment and enforcement of crime. Why are we bringing that into schools?” LeCheminant said.
According to Souder, another purpose of the amendment is its use as a deterrent. “The Drug-Free Student Loan amendment is designed to discourage drug use among students. Since a student who knows that his financial aid could be suspended if he’s convicted of a drug crime will be less likely to use or deal drugs in the first place,” he said.
In Indiana, the Deptartment of Education had the highest rate of federal financial withdrawal of any other in the union, with 8,903 students losing aid with the passage of this legislation.
“It is contrary to the initial intent of the law because it is denying aid to students who need it the most,” Angell said.
LeCheminant shared concerns with the restrictions, saying, “It does seem a little redundant, because if you are convicted, almost always sentencing requires that you go through rehab, so why even get it involved in the finicial aid process?”
-skjohnson@cc.usu.edu