Just Say Yes

A drug conviction may get you a scholarship from the ASUC

By Derek Yee and Michael Klein
From the March 2007 Print Edition

            In a symbolic measure to voice opposition to the 1998 annexation of the Drug-Free Student Loan amendment to the Higher Education Act of 1965, the UC Berkeley Associated Students of the University of California Senate unanimously passed the Removing Impediments to Students’ Education bill during its first convening session of the year on January 24.

            Authored by ASUC Senator David Israel Wasserman, this bill notes that according to the Chronicle of Higher Education for the year 2000, UC Berkeley ranks among the top five universities in the nation for drug arrests. The federal Drug-Free Student Loan amendment temporarily denies federal financial aid to those students who are convicted of drug possession; the purpose of Wasserman’s bill is to not only symbolically oppose the amendment, but to also tangibly aid a select number of such students with $400 per year in scholarships.

Congress originally ratified the Higher Education Act in 1965 so as to “strengthen the educational resources of our colleges and universities and to provide financial assistance for students in postsecondary and higher education.” Today, the act includes the legal basis for the distribution of much of the federal student grant and loan programs such as the Pell, Stafford, and Direct Loan offerings.

In 1998, Congress amended and reauthorized the Higher Education Act to include, among other amendments, the Drug-Free Student Loan amendment. This amendment states that “a student who has been convicted of any offense under any Federal or State law involving the possession or sale of a controlled substance shall not be eligible to receive any grant, loan, or work assistance” consistent with the financial aid programs offered in that particular title of the Higher Education Act. The student’s eligibility is suspended for at least one year, with the length of the suspension beyond that depending on the number of times the offense is repeated and whether the conviction is for the possession or sale of drugs.

            To regain eligibility, the student can go at any time through an approved drug rehabilitation program and submit to two unannounced drug tests.  He can also just choose to wait out the suspension period if he so desires. That means that the student can regain eligibility before the fulfillment of the suspension period at any time if he or she simply proves willingness to end the possession of or the sale of drugs and undergo rehabilitation.

In a congratulatory statement to recognize the amended reauthorization of the act, former President Bill Clinton later remarked in a press release that this would mark an important step in aiding more Americans’ entry into institutions of higher education.

Following the authoring of the Drug-Free Student Loan amendment by Indiana Congressman Mark Souder, and its subsequent inclusion in the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, it was implemented in the year 2000 by the U.S. Department of Education. Thus, the executive branch, under the Department of Education, enforced the new law by adding a question to the 2000-2001 Free Application for Federal Student Aid form which asked the applicant if he or she had been recently convicted of a drug offense. If so, the student would be denied financial aid for one or two years based on the severity of the infraction.

The Education Department misunderstood the original intent of the law according to Souder’s amendment. Rather than punish students for any drug convictions they committed prior to coming to college, Souder emphasized that the law was meant only to apply specifically to students who had been convicted of drug offenses while already receiving financial aid and attending university. Thus, Souder notes that in February 2006 Congress amended the Drug-Free Student Loan amendment to reflect its original intent, after pressure to do so by him and several other lawmakers.

As of the 2006-2007 school year, students are no longer penalized for drug convictions that occurred prior to enrollment in college.

Wasserman asserts a host of claims and grievances within his RISE bill (SB-1), which is specifically directed at what he calls the “Aid Elimination Provision” to the Higher Education Act, terminology used in lieu of the “Drug-Free Student Loan” amendment. The RISE bill states that more than 180,000 persons convicted of drug offenses have had financial aid delayed or denied as a result of the Aid Elimination Provision, and that the provision is contrary to the goals of the Higher Education Act itself. Amidst grievances that the provision contributes to social injustice and hampers the delivery of vital education services, the RISE bill employs several tactics designed to increase public awareness of the issue.

Tangibly, the bill will issue at least one $400 scholarship per academic year to a student who has been denied financial aid because of a drug conviction during college. The scholarship will be funded largely from the ASUC Carry Forward Account. This account contains much of the student activities fees revenue that is generated from mandatory fees that students pay upon enrollment at UC Berkeley. The ASUC will also seek private sources of funding. Students receiving the scholarship must fulfill certain obligations, such as performing 20 hours of community service within the academic year the scholarship is received and maintaining good student standing.

In an interview with Wasserman, the ASUC senator said that he came up with the idea in the spring of 2006. He felt that it was unfair that students were being denied aid under the Drug-Free Student Loan amendment. “Students facing drug convictions have already paid their debt to society,” Wasserman said. “To further penalize them by taking away an opportunity for education is nonsensical.”

Although a few private schools have sponsored aid-replacement scholarships, no public schools have sponsored these types of scholarships, often because of financial difficulties. The senators concluded that $400, which comes from student fees, would be a sufficient amount to cover books and school supplies for the semester, which would help allay the student’s financial burdens. Wasserman hopes that this small gesture will be the catalyst for other schools to look into similar options. “The [passage of this bill] will be a greater lobbying tool for financial aid reform,” said Wasserman.

Reacting to the news that the ASUC had passed such legislation, press secretary Martin Green of Souder’s office remarked that the term “Aid Elimination Provision” is intended as a pejorative description of the Drug-Free Student Loan amendment. He noted that the amendment’s purpose is to “hold the student accountable to the taxpayer.” If students ask for funds from the taxpayer, they should be responsible enough to not break the law. “It’s hard to argue with the logic of the amendment,” said Green, “the efforts of the ASUC here are misguided.” He also mentioned that the amendment received widespread support in Congress at the time of its adoption in 1998.

Souder has publicly released his position on his Drug-Free Student Loan amendment and it is available on his Web site. His aim in authoring the bill was to make the student more accountable for the financial aid he or she received from the American taxpayer.

Regarding student drug offenses, he states, “It’s one thing if they are going to do it with their own money … but it’s something else to ask the American taxpayer to fund this kind of behavior.” He adds, “Getting aid is a privilege, not a right … the very least that can be expected of those who use the tax dollars of those who do not attend college is to follow the law.” Another purpose of the amendment is to discourage students from using drugs in the first place.

Despite the claims of the federal lawmakers, UC Berkeley’s ASUC senators and several students do not quite see eye to eye. Victoria Mitchell, the Berkeley College Republicans ASUC Senator, joined her colleagues in backing the bill. She felt that this bill would be an encouragement to students who have made mistakes in the past. “It is cruel to penalize students who made a mistake in the past,” Mitchell said. She noted that the bill was carefully written to make sure that the students were screened and would be required to adhere to a “moral commitment.” The provision for a scholarship will disappear as soon as the government or school provides financial aid to students with drug convictions.

Joe Aiello, an ombudsman for the Federal Student Aid office at the Department of Education, clarified that the education institution is responsible for denying aid in accordance with the amendment­ — it is not the federal government’s role to make those individual decisions. If students have questions or concerns regarding the FAFSA application, Aiello said that they should seek out a financial aid administrator at their own school.

ASUC officials are currently drafting letters to send to elected and appointed officials as well as UC Berkeley Chancellor Robert Birgeneau. They are also working on an op-ed for the Daily Californian to make students more aware of their actions. Wasserman stated that they hope to use the bill to pressure the government on Cal Lobby Day this month.

If you enjoyed this article, please consider supporting the Patriot