Because I Got High

For the past eight years, the Higher Education Act’s Aid Elimination Provision (AEP) stipulated that students convicted of drug offenses—whether in high school or in college—would become ineligible for federal financial aid for college. While Congress acted prudently last Februray when it repealed this provision for students convicted during high school, it left in place the penalties for those convicted while in college (although Harvard College officials confirmed this week that students who lose financial aid under the AEP will receive comparable aid from the College). The withdrawal of federal aid for college drug offenders rests on arbitrary criteria and speaks to the government’s misguided approach to the entire “War on Drugs.”

Millions of students cannot afford to attend college without the help of federal financial aid. The AEP affects these students most profoundly, as those in lower socioeconomic groups are both more dependent on financial aid and more likely to be convicted of drug offenses. For minor drug offenses such as possession, Congress should adopt a rehabilitative approach rather than a punitive one. The best way to prevent recidivism is to provide such offenders with the chance to attend college and become productive members of society. Instead, the AEP renders many college drug offenders unable to continue their education, limiting their opportunities and standing in the way of their personal growth.

Federal financial aid is not, however, an absolute right. But there are already standards for receiving federal financial aid. Students must be admitted to college in order to receive aid, with eligibility contingent upon continued enrollment. Therefore, students must meet the academic and behavioral standards of the educational institutions they attend in order to qualify for federal funding.

If Congress wishes to set additional standards (beyond enrollment) for recipients of federal financial aid, such standards must be fair, sensible, and consistent. There exists no plausible reason for drug crimes to be singled out for special punishment; revocation of aid should depend on the seriousness of the crime rather than the type. As it stands, a misdemeanor drug offense could make a student ineligible for aid, while a student convicted of felony assault would still technically qualify. The denial of educational opportunity carries such serious ramifications for a person’s future that the threshold for ineligibility should be both high—a felony conviction, for example—and consistent. (A higher threshhold would, of course, continue to allow colleges to enforce their own codes of conduct as they see fit.)

On the whole, the AEP is indicative of a larger problem with the federal government’s War on Drugs. Rather than tie drug convictions to rehabilitation or education programs, the AEP sets drug offenders further back by denying them access to education. Such hard paternalism is the hallmark of the War on Drugs. This strategy neither addresses the root causes of drug use nor forestalls future offenses. If the government is serious about combating drug use, it must focus its efforts on education and prevention, rather than punishment and restriction of educational opportunity.