|
| Denying Drug Convicts Aid Criticized |
|
Posted by CN Staff on April 14, 2003 at 09:42:33 PT By Craig Linder, States News Service Source: News-Sentinel 
Washington - Student groups, drug reformers and liberal Democrats are taking aim at a law that denies federal financial aid to college students convicted of drug violations.They're not alone. Even U.S. Rep. Mark Souder, the 3rd District Republican who wrote the law, said it needs to be changed because the U.S. Department of Education is applying it to more students than he envisioned. At issue is a provision in a 1998 measure that authorized federal support for colleges and universities. Included in the massive bill was a 277-word provision that made students who had been convicted of drug violations ineligible for federally funded financial aid for up to three years. A broad range of groups - from college financial aid administrators to activists seeking the complete legalization of drugs - said the provision is unfair because it prevents people with prior convictions from turning around their lives by going to college. "It makes students leave school when they have a minor drug offense," said Ben Gaines, who heads a Drug Reform Coordination Network project seeking to repeal the provision. "We don't believe that access to higher education should be included in the war on drugs." Souder said that wasn't his intent. He wanted the provision to apply to students who were convicted of the possession or sale of controlled substances only while they were receiving financial aid - not to those students who were convicted of drug crimes before college. "There are some people who should be able to get aid who aren't getting aid because of the way it's being enforced, and that's not fair," Souder spokesman Seth Becker said. About 9,000 students were declared ineligible for federal financial aid between 1998 and 2000, advocates said, citing Education Department figures. Between 2001 and 2003, however, those numbers skyrocketed to about 84,000 students. The 1998 higher-education law expires this year, and nearly everyone expects members of Congress to change the financial aid provision when they write a new version of the bill. The question, however, is what the changed provision will look like or how many students it would affect. Souder is backing a change to the financial-aid provision that he said would suspend financial aid only to college students who are convicted of drug violations while they are receiving the federal aid - essentially returning the law to his original intent. "This is no different from any other scholarship. If you're on a basketball scholarship, you've got to play basketball. If you're on an academic scholarship, you've got to keep your grades up," Becker said. "If you are getting what is essentially a scholarship from the federal government, there's no reason why you shouldn't be expected to follow federal law." That proposal will probably be included in the version of the higher-education bill endorsed by the Republican leadership of the education committee, congressional aides said. But Rep. George Miller of California, who is the top Democrat on the House Education Committee, said he would push to have what he called the "unjust" financial-aid provision removed from the new higher-education bill. "It sends the wrong message to students seeking to improve their lives just at the time when they need the help the most," Miller said. Source: News-Sentinel, The (Fort Wayne, IN) Related Articles & Web Sites: DRCNet Drug Free Student Aid Perverts Education Drug Policy Harms Youth Yale's Policy Makes Stand on Drug Law Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help |
 |
| Comment #4 posted by i420 on April 15, 2003 at 16:14:34 PT |
| The federal government likes to play these money headgames with the states in America by withholding federal funding for state and local projects if they don't pass laws that the federal govenment wants the states to pass when the states don't agree with these laws or they would pass on their own without these political headgames. Now the feds are going After the people of America in the same way by denying financial aid to those who need it most. Well two can play at that game, remember those lil remonstrance petitions i mentioned in earlier comments??? We can do the same by stopping all capital building projects. Anything put on the table can be knocked on the floor for 1 year with a succesful remonstrance petition. It doesn't take any money just some ground poundin' door knockin' aggressive petitioning. Property owners will sign these petitions left and right because they do NOT want higher property taxes. If you are not a property owner you cannot sign or carry most of these petitions but that cannot stop you from helping petitioneers, you can help by getting people to help petition, verifying signed petitions ( these petitions are so picky if a property owner leaves out their middle initial and their middle initial is on the property deed their signature will get booted). The way i see it these remonstrance petitions are our "wildcard" that trumps everything. Ask your county clerk about remonstrance petitons they will tell u what to do in your area since surely everyplace is slightly different. Make it happen people!!! [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #3 posted by freedom fighter on April 14, 2003 at 18:17:12 PT |
| change this bill's title to "DUMBING-DOWN EDUCATION BILL". I truly feel like do some serious tarring and feathering! Repel this bill 100% and get rid of Souder! paz ff [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #2 posted by 420toker on April 14, 2003 at 16:49:37 PT |
| So is rackateering, money laundering, treason, and terrorism. They might get you executed but they wont get your funding jerked. If only federal law applies then how are they allowed to jerk your funding based on what happens at the state level anyway. I am becoming convinced we dont have states anymore we are one big prison and unfair incarceration state that enjoyes beating down and destroying the lives of everyone who doesn't conform. I know lets make a law forbiding people to serve as an elected offical because they violated a municiple state or federal law. Thats right only squeeky clean people would get in. That would have taken Bush our of the picture, and his 2 daughters and his niece....... [ Post Comment ] |
|
Comment #1 posted by palmspringsbum on April 14, 2003 at 14:41:45 PT:
|
| It does a Hell of a lot more than than... ...I bet if I sent George Miller a smilar 'message' he'd wouldn't be so blase about it. [ Post Comment ] |
| Post Comment |  |
 |  |