What does every student not have and want more of? Money! And it's for tuition, right? Come on, play along and nod "yes."
Well, some students aren't nodding. They're shaking their heads "no" and shaking their fists in anger.
This past week the Chicago Tribune ran an article detailing how some college students were being denied federal aid under a Higher Education Act provision. The denials have led to a myriad of protestations.
The provision in question is Section 484(F), commonly called the Drug Provision. It resulted in an additional FAFSA question No. 35, which asks respondents if they've ever been convicted of drug-related offenses. A "yes" or blank answer results in a letter asking some follow-up questions.
Under 484(F), a convicted student loses federal aid eligibility for one year for the first offense, two for the second, and the third results in the Pete Rose treatment. Despite the fact that 484(F) merely suspends federal aid for a dedicated period of time, it's still considered draconian by opponents.
More than 100 student governments want the provision pulled. Other colleges are actually reimbursing students who have lost aid because of 484(F).
Why? "We don't believe students should have their education interrupted," Yale spokesperson Dorie Baker said.
Others say it discriminates against low-income students and minority students. Chris Simmons of the American Council on Education charged that "this punishment does not affect all students equally."
Simmons is right. It doesn't. It discriminates between lower-income and minority students who have drug convictions and those who don't. The provision makes it clear that federal funding shouldn't be granted to students who have shown the inability to make mature decisions.
That conclusion is echoed by several anti-drug groups and the provision's author, Indiana Congressman Mark Souder. Strangely, while Souder agrees the law will discourage drug use, he wants to change it to affect only those convicted during their college years. Souder wants the change because he thinks the provision has been "misinterpreted."
Souder should research what "misinterpreted" means. The past few years, an average of 69,000 applicants have answered question No. 35 affirmatively. The number of those actually denied aid is around 47,000 (out of more than 10 million yearly applicants). The provision is being sensibly interpreted, not cavalierly.
Another interesting part of the law is that the ineligibility period begins at the date of conviction, not the time of application. First-time high-school offender sentenced in their junior year would be eligible their senior year.
The provision also allows students to regain funding eligibility before the suspension's end if the students complete a drug rehabilitation program or their conviction is set aside.
Despite all this, Souder doesn't want to be painted as a creep and is willing to water down a reasonable law. Souder thinks 484(F) will discourage drug use, but apparently he only wants to discourage drug use in college.
The parties calling on 484(F)'s removal ought to be condemning drug usage, not the provision. Undercutting it gives tacit approval to drug usage and those protesting 484(F) have some serious questions to answer. The best way to prevent interrupting students' education is for them to say one little word to dope: No.
Write to Jeff at mannedarena@yahoo.com
Read More
Three Air Jam teams take home the win
October 12, 2012Nineteen teams shimmied, shook and flipped for a sold out John R. Emens Auditorium on Thursday night during the 25th annual Air Jam.
Bill Clinton Speaks at North Central High School
October 12, 2012Former President's Speech Could Have Effect on State Senate Race
