cannabisnews.com: Federal Crackdown on Students 





Federal Crackdown on Students 
Posted by FoM on July 29, 2001 at 07:44:54 PT
By Tanya Schevitz, Chronicle Staff Writer
Source: San Francisco Chronicle 
When Marisa Garcia heard about a new law denying federal financial aid to students with drug convictions, she never thought that it would apply to her. She had just paid a $415 fine for a misdemeanor charge of possession after police found a pipe with some marijuana ashes in her car. "I already got my fine and I paid my ticket. I thought everything was done, and then I found out I was going to be punished again," Garcia said. 
Garcia, 20, a sophomore at California State University at Fullerton, is one of thousands of college students who are being denied federal loans, grants and work assistance, under a 1998 revision of the Higher Education Reform Act that is being strictly enforced for the first time this year. The law took effect last year, but the number of students affected is expected to rise dramatically this year because of a tightening of enforcement under the Bush administration. The law withholds federal loans, grants and work assistance from students for one year for each conviction for illegal drug possession and for two years for each conviction for selling drugs. Additional convictions result in indefinite ineligibility. It is opposed by financial aid administrators at campuses around the country, including the University of California at Berkeley and San Francisco State. U.S. Rep. Mark Souder, R-Ind., sponsored the law after hearing that drug use was skyrocketing among college students, said his spokesman, Seth Becker. But critics say the law does not deter drug use. Instead, it is counterproductive, they say, because it takes away the opportunity for education from those who need it most. It also unfairly affects only low- and middle-income students, often minorities, who need help paying for college, critics say. In addition, it singles out drug users, while those convicted of other crimes can get aid. The law was loosely enforced under the Clinton administration: The question about drug convictions on the financial aid application was not identified as mandatory. More than 279,000 students who did not answer still received financial aid. But under the Bush administration, the form has been amended to state that the box must be filled out. Applications will not be processed for students who skip the question and do not answer a follow-up worksheet. White House spokesman Ken Lisaius said the administration is just enforcing the law. Garcia was one of 9,587 students with convictions who were ineligible for federal aid for at least part of the year between July 1, 2000, and June 30, 2001. With applications still arriving for this year, 7,139 students have already been found ineligible. Another 15,327 applications are pending from students who either left the question blank or had a drug conviction. "Who does this policy help?" said Chris Evans, 24, campus coordinator of the Drug Reform Coordination Network, which is trying to raise awareness about the law. "Nothing bad comes from getting a college degree. By shutting this avenue off for the segment that needs it the most, society is going to pay for this in the long run." Many of the law's critics say it is hypocritical for Bush to enforce such a law when he wouldn't answer questions during the campaign about his drug use. "If George Bush or Al Gore had been caught using drugs, as I believe they did, it wouldn't have affected their ability to go to college," said U.S. Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., who is leading a fight against the law. "It will hurt minorities disproportionately. They are more likely to get arrested for drug use, and they are low-income, so they are more likely to need student aid. So they get a double whammy." Frank failed in an attempt to get the law repealed last year, but has reintroduced the legislation this year with the support of 52 other congressional lawmakers. It is a tough fight, he said, because no one wants to open themselves to charges they are soft on drugs. While those students deemed ineligible are a small fraction of the 10 million applicants for federal aid, it can have a big impact on them and their families. Garcia, one of four children in a single-parent home, was forced to double her hours at the flower shop where she had been working about 20 hours a week. And her mother, worried that Garcia would not be able to go to college, took out a loan. Jae Min, 18, a UC Davis sophomore who faces charges of possessing 7 grams of marijuana while driving around his hometown of Mountain View during spring break, said he isn't even going to bother filling out the financial aid form now. "That they are singling out the drug issue so much is ridiculous. It seems like if you get caught with a joint, you are screwed, whereas you could have murdered someone and still get money," he said. Min, who said he had the pot to share with friends, spent one night in jail and has been charged with possession of marijuana for sale and transportation of marijuana. While the law says that those who go through a rehabilitation program can regain their financial aid eligibility, critics say it does not appropriate any money for the programs. Richard Black, director of financial aid for UC Berkeley, said the financial aid form is the wrong tool for enforcement of drug laws. "I don't think people should abuse substances, but the financial aid form would quickly be overwhelmed if we started putting all forms of culpable or unfortunate behavior on the financial aid form," Black said. Aid Restrictions- Students who are convicted of drug-related offenses face these restrictions on receiving federal financial aid: - Possession of illegal drugs: First offense -- one-year suspension from date of conviction Second offense -- two-year suspension from date of conviction Third offense -- indefinite suspension - Sale of illegal drugs: First offense -- two-year suspension from date of conviction Second offense -- indefinite suspension - All students can regain eligibility during the suspension period if a rehabilitation program is successfully completed and two unannounced drug tests come up negative. Source: U.S. Department of Education Note: Thousands cut off as Bush administration enforces 1998 law. Source: San Francisco Chronicle (CA)Author: Tanya Schevitz, Chronicle Staff WriterPublished: Sunday, July 29, 2001Copyright: 2001 San Francisco Chronicle Page A - 3Contact: letters sfchronicle.comWebsite: http://www.sfgate.com/chronicle/Related Articles:Back To School Plans May Mean No College Aid http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread10306.shtmlRep. Frank Calls for Shift in Nations Drug Policy http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread7348.shtml
END SNIP -->
Snipped
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #10 posted by Lehder on July 30, 2001 at 08:59:28 PT
I wasn't explicit enough
The fact that I only alluded to is this: Many Blacks believe that the government and the CIA in particular have brought heroin and crack specifically into the ghettos with the express purpose of addicting, demoralizing and killing Blacks. Many Blacks believe that heroin and crack are consciously used by the government as weapons of genocide. Is this true? I don't know and have not looked into it sufficiently. Certainly I am convinced that shadow elements of government are deeply involved in smuggling in order to finance secret programs of various kinds. Anyway, i think this belief caused many Blacks to target the drugs themselves as culprit; they want drugs out of their communities and so have often supported the war on drugs as a result - Jesse Jackson for one was for many years a vocal supporter of the war on drugs, but now favors decrim or legalization. That was my point.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #9 posted by Lehder on July 30, 2001 at 08:34:49 PT
unlikely, kap - but...
The threats to freedom experienced by university students today are fairly mild compared to the those of the sixties. Certainly they're substantial and inexcusable, but for the most part, except for blatant street sales and parties that erupt into violence from alcohol, local cops turn a blind eye to drug use in university areas. This so-called crackdown, though, is an escalation that comes from the centers of federal power and has awakened some organized protest. Good.But it's not like getting drafted. It's not like spending one's entire adolescence and high school years watching the bodies pile up every damn night first in b&w and then in color, and then having it go on and on through college and then, just as one wants to get a job and start a career to have his life disrupted for years by a military "obligation", or just as one wants to marry and begin a family to have her boyfriend torn away and shipped overseas for years over something as ugly as a useless war. But let them keep pushing and see what happpens.I have higher hopes for minority groups organizing against the drug war, considering its strong racist element, and I think that much progress could be made for both sides by coalitions between anti-war and minority groups. Certainly the anti-prohibition groups need some friends. In some comments you have expressed incredulity and impatience with the failure of minority leaders to be more vocal and articulate about drug-war racism. The problem here, I think, is that Black leaders and people have made the oversight, which has so many manifestations, of confusing drugs with the drug war. Understandably so, too: for they, more than others have been victimized by the cultural and drug wars. They believe, and there's a lot of truth to it, that the ghettos have been targeted by the government for drug addiction, and in part this occurs also not by design but by happenstance that the poor are easier legal targets, easier for the police to victimize even though drug use among Blacks is equal to or lower than among Whites. My point is that it is easy to understand how the Black response has been more antagonistic to drugs themselves, a misdirection in my opinion, than to the war on drugs.Whether it is well articulated or understood though, minority groups are becoming more discontent, and a weakening turn in the economy - as we are presently having - will ony exacerbate their discontent. Witness the riots in Cincinnatti - they're still going on, on and off now for months. And it is impossible not to notice, as began in Los Angeles some years ago, Whites rioting harmoniously alongside their black and brown brothers. While their complaints may not be well articulated, discontent is growing, and racism is only a part of it - it's the economy and the drug war too and the effects of the drug war on the economy and on the employment of peoples of all colors. I think everyone can gain if we communicate more with black leaders about these issues; at least it would be an interesting discussion.My opinion and conjecture.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #8 posted by kaptinemo on July 30, 2001 at 05:13:21 PT:
Lehder, they might still wake up
But not through anything quite so ennobling as a sense of indignation at something so blatantly racist and unConstitutional.More like self-defense.I haven't been on a college campus in 20 years, so I can't say one way or another what the general disposition of today's students might be like. But force anyone into a corner, and sooner or later, they come out fighting. The campesinos in Colombia are doing so with their lawsuit to stop the spraying; push here and the students just might wake from their slumber long enough to organize.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #7 posted by Lehder on July 30, 2001 at 03:23:20 PT
Forget the Universities
These are not the sixties. The university student these days is several years older than in the sixties. These are people who have jobs, who take drug tests and who are generally poorly informed. In the sixties the students were way ahead of the general population; they were informed about Vietnam and they led the fight against the government's propaganda campaigns.Also, a large and rapidly growing number of students take their degrees via Internet classes. They are relatively isolated and not exposed to ideas outside their textbooks or to free-thinking people or alternate lifestyles. Finally, today's students are dumb. The surge of baby boomers in the sixties allowed universities to be far more selective than they are today. At the University of New Mexico, famous for its multiple choice exams throughout the entire undergraduate course, only one in four incoming freshmen manages to graduate after six years. In short, today's students are soft on war. Don't count on protests or any kind of organized or effective challenge to the drug war from our gelded and lobotomized universities.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #6 posted by mayan on July 30, 2001 at 02:54:54 PT
Bush Still Blows
I liked that one too lookinside! The more I read about the shrub on the web, the more I realize that he and his family are scary folks!Check this one out!http://www.bk2k.com/bushbodycount/bodies.html
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #5 posted by SWAMPIE on July 29, 2001 at 19:59:05 PT
DOUBLE-PUNISHMENT
Isn't there a constitutional amendment against being punished twice for the same"crime"????What about losing your drivers license too?
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #4 posted by lookinside on July 29, 2001 at 14:16:25 PT:
thanks, mayan...
just sent something to EVERYONE on my email list...i wonderhow my (republican) congressman and assemblyman will take it?
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by FoM on July 29, 2001 at 13:10:55 PT
My 2 cents
There's something I've thought about more then once. I don't know anything about Cocaine except that just thinking that Bush used Coke doesn't sound like much of a compliment to Cocaine. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by mayan on July 29, 2001 at 13:08:01 PT
Bush Blows
If you want to protest & piss of the Prez, visit - http://www.justsayblow.com
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by lookinside on July 29, 2001 at 12:26:29 PT:
racist...
this law is poorly written...even the author has saidso...of course the "shrub" would run with it...it allows himto abuse segments of the population that he can't relateto...the poor, the non-white, and the young...(hisrelationship with his daughters seems to be less than perfect)i hope rep. frank can push this through...but it will takemany, many letters from irate citizens to help...
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment