The Higher Education Act was initiated in 1968 to provide grants
and loans to students who would otherwise be unable to attend state
colleges and universities. In 1998 the HEA was reviewed by Congress
and updated to include a provision that delays or eliminates
federal financial aid for any student convicted of a non-violent
drug offense. Thousands of students since the inception of this
policy have been denied financial aid.
The intention of the provision was to deter drug use, but the
policy has created a barrier for students who may have been
convicted of prior drug usage, but who have since repented and are
now seeking an education.
Recently, Rep. Barney Frank reintroduced House Resolution 685.
If passed, the bill would repeal the Higher Education Act Drug
Provision. Even one of the original authors of the 1998 HEA
provision admits that there are problems with the current
implementation of the policy.
In a statement, Rep. Mark Sauder, one of the two representatives
who sponsored the act, stated, “There are people who are
being denied federal aid, contrary to the express intent of the
Congress, because of this regulation.”
Sauder was very concerned with the way the provision has been
implemented by the Department of Education. He added, “I am
absolutely committed to making sure that this legislation is
enforced as the Congress intended when I co-authored it in
1998.”
The intention of the 1998 provision was to deny financial aid to
students who were getting federal money and buying illegal drugs
with these funds. This intention has been warped by the Department
of Education, which has incorrectly implemented the HEA provision
and in the process blocked aid to deserving students.
Whatever the original intent of the legislation was, it is clear
that the HEA provision needs to be repealed. The current
enforcement of the policy unfairly penalizes someone who wants to
get an education. In effect, the implementation of this provision
violates the “double jeopardy” guarantee in the
constitution, because students who may have been convicted of drug
usage and have served their sentences can still be denied financial
aid. They are penalized twice for one crime.
While the intent of the HEA provision is to deter drug usage,
this is not the best way to go about it. Attacking the members of
our society who are already categorized as drug offenders by taking
away their abilities to get an education will do nothing to
alleviate the drug problem in our country. This is a clear example
of good intentions gone awry, and I hope that students are freed
from this archaic legislation.
Dahle is president of the Undergraduate Student Association
Council