HAVE YOU EVER BEEN CONVICTED OF A DRUG OFFENSE?

by Alison VanDeursen

I always thought it was a strange question. Tucked between queries about my interest in "work-study" and of my tax return and income (or lack thereof), Question 35 asks bluntly, "Have you ever been convicted of any drug offense?" I haven't, and though I've found it puzzling, I'm usually in a rush to meet some deadline. So I just check "No" and move on through the Federal Student Aid forms without considering the racist and classist implications of this question.

I went "back to school" four years ago, a change in my life made possible by Federal Student Aid. The grants and low-interest loans have funded my San Francisco State University tuition, as well as my books and some living expenses. I've been able to get by financially working only part-time, allowing me to concentrate on my education full-time each semester. I will be graduating this month- if I get about 15 papers done this week- with skills and experience that I will be valuable to my self and to my community. Sure, I've smoked marijuana from time to time, though I've never been arrested for it. And so what if I had?

If I had, I've recently learned, I would have been denied my financial aid, and would have been forced to drop out of school. I first read about this in the New York Times this month. Dina Jean Schemo reported that Russell Selker, a student of Ohio State University, was denied financial aid because he had been found guilty of smoking marijuana. He paid his fine, had his driver's license revoked, and was assigned probation and community service. Thinking his debt was paid, Selker was surprised when he received another sort of sentence- a block on his financial aid for college for a year. This punishment was handed down not by a judge, but by a 1998 amendment to the Higher Education Act.

Every six years Congress revises the Higher Education Act of 1965, which was enacted to provided access to education by way of Perkins Loans, Pell-Grants, and other federal student aid. The 1998 revision, signed by President Clinton, contains many provisions lauded by Congress members for making college more accessible to everyone. Yet the HEA drug provision, spearheaded by Mark Souder, R-Ind, punishes those already at-risk of marginalization: low-income people and minorities. These are people who most depend on financial aid to make education possible. These are also the people most often targeted and profiled in the "War on Drugs."

My friend Nicholas, while in college, was cited by a cop for possessing marijuana. Lucky for him, this cop let him go without an arrest. The fact that Nicholas is white and attended an Ivy League university in the northeast probably helped sway the officer- the United States Department of Justice reports that African Americans represent 55 percent of drug convictions, though they make up only 13 percent of drug users! Even if Nicholas had been arrested, he would have received a sort of special treatment. His family did not rely on financial aid to send him to college, and so, unlike a low-income student, he would not have lost his right to an education.

When the question first appeared on Financial Aid Applications, many chose not to answer, and received aid anyway. But Rep. Souder made sure in 1999 that all loopholes were closed, and the question now is followed by a stern warning, "Do not leave this question blank." If left blank, the applicant will not receive aid. If the applicant has had a drug conviction, he or she will lose aid for a period of one year to indefinitely.

The only way around the penalty is to participate in a federally-approved drug rehabilitation program that includes at least two random urine tests. This is again discriminatory- such drug programs can be difficult to access or prohibitively expensive. As well, people convicted of drug offenses are not necessarily addicts in need of rehabilitation. They may, like myself, be occasional or recreational users. I certainly don't see how the Department of Education is qualified to determine whom is in need of drug treatment programs, especially as it is only the poor and working class whom they scrutinize.

I'm sure this law was an easy sell- "We're not going to give hand-outs to druggies!" But students who must answer "Yes" to Question 35 are ineligible for ALL federal funding- this includes "work-study," where a student works on campus to earn money for school, and loans, which must be paid back with interest.

I feel fortunate that I have not been personally penalized by this law and so forced to take a leave from school. As a student who took ten years off from college, I can tell you that momentum is important. The Department of Education reports that over 8,600 students have lost federal aid this school year die to this amendment. It goes without saying that these students are middle and lower income, or else they would not be eligible for assistance in the first place! Wealthy people ARE NOT affected by this legislation, no matter how many drug convictions they may have! And only drug offenses constitute denial of federal aid- no questions are asked about rape, murder, or arson.

Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass, is at least as outraged by this law as I am! He is reintroducing legislation this year to repeal the HEA drug provision- legislation that failed to pass last year, but with increased awareness, there is hope Question 35 will disappear from the Financial Aid applications before others lose their right to an education. Check out website www.raiseyourvoice.com to send letters to congress and find out more about this issue.