Amid inquiries about name, age and address on the FAFSA form is a single question that has nothing to do with income or academic eligibility, and has kept tens of thousands of students from receiving any aid at all.
Answering “yes” to FAFSA question 23, which reads, “Have you been convicted for the possession or sale of illegal drugs for an offense that occurred while you were receiving federal student aid (grants, loans, and/or work-study)?” prevents a student from receiving up to $5,550 of Pell Grants in the coming school year. That amount would cover almost a year of in-state tuition and fees for a Portland State undergraduate student.
This law that bars many drug offenders from receiving federal financial aid is arbitrary, discriminatory, counter to the philosophy of education and should be fully repealed. Congress has only minimally chipped away at the statute since its inception, but it should go the whole way in repealing legislation so damning to students most in need of a leg up.
The original, far-reaching law dictated the denial of aid to those convicted of certain types of misdemeanors and felonies related to controlled substances beginning in 2000, two years after Congress tacked the “Aid Elimination Provision” onto the Higher Education Act of 1965. The imposition of this draconian law led to the denial of Pell Grants to an estimated 41,000 students in the 2003–04 school year alone.
According to a report issued by the Congressional Government Accountability Office, an independent, nonpartisan agency, these figures likely understate the number of people affected;, as they do not account for people who simply assumed that prior drug convictions would disqualify them and thus chose not to apply at all.
However, in 2006, Congress scaled back the law so that only people convicted while receiving financial aid would have their eligibility rescinded. Further changes were made in 2008 which removed the requirement of those convicted to complete a government-approved and potentially costly drug-treatment program to regain eligibility. Now, students simply have to pass two random drug tests administered by a government-approved treatment program, according to the Students for Sensible Drug Policy website.
Any student convicted of a violent crime, fraud, extortion or larceny has no trouble getting access to federal financial aid despite their criminal record. There is no logic in unfairly targeting students convicted of minor drug crimes, especially considering that access to education is proven to decrease the likelihood of committing a crime. Drug abusers need treatment and should not be barred from institutions that can assist in recovery, though federal law still prohibits most convicted drug offenders from accessing federal housing and food assistance.
“This law is discriminatory,” said Graham Boyd, director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s Drug Law Reform Project, in a statement on the ACLU website. “If a student is convicted of a drug offense and her family can afford to pay for college, she will be unaffected by the legislation, while those who are already in danger of being forced to society’s margins will be further disempowered.”
ACLU experts note that the law disproportionately affects African Americans and Latinos, who are convicted of drug offenses at a much higher rate than whites. Recent Department of Justice statistics show that African Americans make up 13 percent of drug users, but account for more than 62 percent of those convicted for drug-related crimes, and more than 70 percent of those incarcerated for drug possession.
It is understandable that in some extreme cases, the denial of financial aid is an adequate response to criminal activity but its inappropriate in the case of minor drug charges. ?
Virginia Vickery Editor-in-Chief Corie Charnley News Editor Nicholas Kula Arts & Culture Editor Richard Oxley Opinion Editor Kevin Fong Sports Editor Noah Emmet Chief Copy Editor