So today I read what has to be an awful job of coverage by the Washington Post on the issue of federal student aid. The article addressed efforts to repeal provisions of the 1998 Higher Education Act that prevent those convicted of drug crimes from receiving federal student aid. The awful coverage job is that the article made the story into some sort of "rich vs. poor" issue - as if the law was passed to oppress the poor because rich people don't need financial aid.
In reality, the issue is government responsibility to its citizens and taxpayers. I grant that the law doesn't affect "rich kids" who don't get financial aid - but the simple answer to that is - the government can't do anything to them, and rightly, because the government is doing anything for them in the first place. Most of these "rich kids" attend private institutions by using private dollars (from parents and relatives). If little Johnny's parents are still willing to pay $40K a year so they're little druggie can go to Princeton, good for them. But I, as a taxpayer, should not have my tax dollars go to support the education of a half-baked kid who can't manage to go to class because smoking up is more important.
Mind you, I don't claim the law in question is flawless. I think there are many things "wrong" with it, but I do strongly disagree with the alleged answer of repeal. The answer is not to eliminate the provisions, it's to make them real restrictions. The underlying principle - that taxpayers should not support the education of kids who are twice (twice!) convicted of possession (or once convicted of selling drugs; and both possesors and sellers are at first only suspended from receipt for two years - a ban only activates on additional convictions) - is a good one, and should be one that receives broad support.
That said, read on below the fold for some of my "corrections" that might make the law better - and more equitable.
First is the obvious one - the law currently deals only with drug crimes. It should be expanded to all crimes, especially violent crimes. No criminal should go to college on the taxpayer's dime. If you can't live under the laws, you shouldn't reap the benefits of federal largess.
Second, the article raises an interesting issue about enforcement. Reading the article, it seems that some colleges are less "rigorous" in enforcing drug laws or in prosecuting cases. Princeton seems to like letting its students off light and reports few if any cases. The solution is actually to give colleges receiving federal grants or other funds (virtually every school in America) "incentives" to enforce drug laws and take corrective measures.
Third, and the lawyer in me does "bristle" at this, the law tends towards a black and white application. There are few if any individualized circumstances that are taken into account in denials of aid. Either you are, or are not, ineligible based on drug crimes. The law really needs to create or beef up (I have not read the whole statute and do not know what procedural details are permitted) an "appeal" process. Those deemed ineligible should have a chance, probably before an Administrative Judge attached to the Dept. of Education, to present "mitigating facts" that could lead to exceptions to the general rule.
Of course, none of this is addressed by the article. The issues are raised, but the end conclusion is that the law is all bad because it favors the wealthy. In fact, the "rich/poor" angle misses the actual point of the law and only serves to divert the focus of the debate from the principles underlying the law and the formulation of solutions to the actual problems of the law in question.
Comments