By The Editors
After breezing through questions about citizenship, educational background and marital status, many students’ dreams of higher education suddenly die only three pages into filling out their applications for federal student aid.
The hours of studying in high school and the plans for the rest of their future, all become reduced to one moment of lapsed judgment and one question: “Have you ever been convicted of possessing or selling illegal drugs?”
The federal law blocking these students from receiving financial aid was introduced in 2000 as an amendment to the Higher Education Act, which must be renewed by Congress every five years. First signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson, the Higher Education Act was intended to make a college education more accessible and affordable to students across the nation. However, the effect of the 2000 provision slammed this window of opportunity shut for students who were convicted of misdemeanors as juveniles.
Last month, however, the Higher Education Act reached the floor of Congress, and thanks to the lobbying efforts of students, administrators, civil rights activists, teachers and the Coalition for Higher Education Act Reform (CHEAR), many students will now receive a second chance.
The latest revision to the Higher Education Act forbids the government from discriminating against students who were convicted of drug crimes prior to enrolling in college. These students will now be added into the pool and will be evaluated by the same standards used to judge their law-abiding peers.
Many proponents for the revision of the Higher Education Act argue that this change is not enough. Under the renewed act, the federal government can still deny aid to students who are convicted of drug-related crimes while enrolled in college. The law stipulates that federal aid can be suspended for one year after a person commits a first offence, two years for two offenses and indefinitely for further drug convictions. Critics argue that the drug crime provisions are wrong because they deny aid from students who need it the most. They say it widens the gap between the rich and the poor, the educated and uneducated, because students from wealthier families who are not dependent on financial aid can still attend college despite any drug convictions. Meanwhile, their poor counterparts are deprived at an early age of any chance of becoming a contributing member of society. As a result, these students are trapped in a life of poverty and desperation and are more likely to resort to illegal ways of obtaining supporting themselves or living on welfare, and are less likely to send their children to college. This side makes a strong argument for abolishing the drug provision from the Higher Education Act completely, because it not only shows the damage it causes to the individuals, but also how society as a whole.
In an ideal world, a college education would be accessible and affordable to all Americans. Much has changed in the thirty plus years since LBJ envisioned a world of equal higher education opportunity. The biggest difference today is that while the taxpayers contribute more to higher education funds than ever before, tuition costs have risen far beyond the rate of inflation. As a result, the millions of students who are thrown into the pool for federal aid are sucking up great sums of money. Thus, if everyone must be served, than no one will receive a piece of the pie large enough to satisfy their financial needs.
Living in a representative democracy, citizens are constantly demanding that their government be held accountable, but at some point, shouldn’t the government be able to ask citizens to take responsibility for their actions, especially when they are asking for a hand-out?
The latest revision to the Higher Education Act is fair. Denying students a future because of the mistakes they made during adolescence is deplorable. Even if some of the most intelligent and successful people were asked to recall their teenage years they would probably cringe at the thought of the choices from fashion offenses such as spandex and scrunchies, to shoplifting, drugs and even riskier behavior. Even our current president openly omitted to using drugs in his adolescent years. These people were given a second chance and were able to grow into upstanding citizens.
However, there is a big difference between granting second chances and wiping the slate clean every time a person breaks the law. Laws were created for a reason. Without them, society would deteriorate into chaos. Therefore, anyone who supports eradicating a complete reversal to the this area of the Higher Education Act, does not take laws against drug crimes seriously.
College is supposed to be a time for each student to learn more about the adult world and how they fit in. When adults apply for jobs, most of the time they will asked if they have ever been convicted of a crime, so why should college students be held to different standards when applying for financial aid? The answer is, they shouldn’t.
The cold hard truth is that this is a capitalistic society and in the free market, there are winners and losers. When the government provides a student with federal aid, it is not because politicians have a genuine concern with whether that person enjoys a better life, but rather they are making an investment in hopes that it will fuel the economy. Similarly if your stock in a company was declining, wouldn’t it be wise to pull out your money and spend it on someone who will put it to better use?
Under the revised law, students will now receive a second chance at carving out a prosperous future, but whether they embrace this opportunity or go down on the third strike, the ball is now in their court.