Ian Esiner Eisner is a third-year political
science student. E-mail him at [email protected].
UCLA students may have differing ideas on how university funds
should be allocated, but using state dollars to replace lost
federal financial aid for students convicted of drug crimes is
unlikely to make anyone’s short list. But just when you
thought the UCLA administration was at a full left-tilt, the
university’s Financial Aid Office has made public its desire
to rebuff federal legislation which demands students with drug
convictions undergo rehabilitation before they are eligible for
financial aid.
The federal “Drug Free Student Loans” provision, a
1998 amendment to the Higher Education Act, stipulates that for a
“possession of illegal drugs” conviction past the age
of 18, a student is ineligible for financial aid for one year. A
second offense yields two years of ineligibility. However, a
student can regain financial aid, regardless of the type of drug
conviction, by simply completing a 15-hour drug rehabilitation
program recognized by Congress and the Department of Education.
Hardly a political maelstrom or right-wing conspiracy, the
amended bill passed with a heavily bi-partisan House vote of 414 to
4. Its moderate themes of accountability and responsibility have
resonated with representatives and constituents alike. And to its
credit, the Bush administration has taken the mandate to heart,
enforcing the bill with a kind of consistency not seen during the
Clinton years.
While this action is fully in step with the political mores of
mainstream America and the will of Congress, some groups are
dismayed by the recent turn of events. So following obligatory
cries of “discrimination,” left-leaners such as the
ACLU and the National Association of Student Financial Aid
Administrators have all but urged university financial aid offices
to undermine the federal legislation by reimbursing student aid
with state funds.
Falling in line, our very own UCLA Financial Aid Office has
recently expressed its desire to skirt the 1998 amendment to the
Higher Education Act. Armed with the power of the state purse, the
FAO’s plan to replace unreformed drug abusers’ federal
financial aid with state university money is an egregious example
of misguided authority and preposterous policy. By calling the
shots from the political fringe ““ over the heads of the
American people and their democracy ““ the FAO has hijacked a
good piece of legislation and turned it into liberal fluff.
If the office has its way, UC money that should be used to
bolster under-funded departments will be spent on drug users
refusing 15 hours of rehabilitation.
In an off-putting blend of hyper-sensitivity and artifice, the
FAO aims to shift the onus from federal to state taxpayers.
Financial Aid Office Director Ronald Johnson offers a tepid
defense, stating “I believe the war on drugs should be on the
battle fields of the inner city, not the college campus where
students are working to improve our society.” This
cotton-candy justification suggests that students convicted of
possessing or selling drugs are too busy “improving our
society” to undergo necessary rehabilitation. If anything,
the FAO should be encouraging these students to get clean. Instead,
the office has prematurely raised the white flag in order to
completely avoid the sticky issue of drug abuse.
Johnson comments, “We (the FAO) have opposed tying
eligibility for financial aid to an individual’s compliance
with other, unrelated federal laws.” It is unclear where this
opposition stems from, as “drug-free” requisites are
perfectly legal. Nonetheless, the relationship between drug abuse
and educational under-performance is readily apparent to any
sound-minded individual. Why then should over-taxed Americans
supply state money used to fund the education of a student unable
to reach his potential due to unreformed drug abuse?
It is a question yet to be answered. Instead, opponents of the
provision would rather divert attention toward a line of
class-warfare propaganda. Their grievance: The legislation is
discriminatory because it places the undue burden of staying
drug-free solely on “poor” financial aid recipients.
Clearly missing the point, the FAO and other institutions fail to
grasp that drug-free strings apply to lower income students because
only they are afforded the opportunity to rely upon taxpayer-funded
federal or state aid as a means to help pay for education.
Mandates that only concern financial aid applicants are not a
new phenomenon. There have always existed minimum academic
performance standards for aid recipients. But under the FAO’s
logic, these strings would also constitute discrimination solely
against the poor and should thus be dropped. Ridiculous,
isn’t it?
Financial aid is a privilege, not a right. While Congress and
the President are shrewd enough to note the difference, the UCLA
Financial Aid Office clearly is not. Empowered by the almighty
state dollar, the FAO indicated its disturbing desire to trump both
the federal government and common sense.