The student government at the University of California, Berkeley recently created a school-funded scholarship for students deemed ineligible for financial aid because of a previous drug conviction.

Citing educational opportunity – while remaining critical of a 1998 amendment to the Higher Education Act – Berkeley became the fourth college to establish such a scholarship. This is the first time a school’s student government enacted such a change.

‘It’s absolutely ridiculous that we have a policy that takes money from people trying to go to school,’ said David Wasserman, the senator in the Berkeley Associated Students that drafted the scholarship program and a senior political science major. ‘What it actually does is deprive students of a means to education (which is) antithetical to the aims of the Higher Education Act.’

Section 484 (r) of the Higher Education Act deems any student convicted in a state or federal court for a crime involving ‘the possession or sale of a controlled substance shall not be eligible to receive any grant, loan, or work assistance.’

That amendment mandates a one-year aid suspension of aid for possession of a controlled substance for first time offenders. A two-year suspension is required for the second offense. Students with three drug-use convictions or two drug-dealing convictions are deemed permanently ineligible. Alcohol is not considered a controlled substance.

Congress will reevaluate the amendment this year as part of a reauthorization of the entire Higher Education Act, first drafted in 1965. A 2006 provision in the Deficit Reduction Act narrowed the rule to only currently enrolled students with drug convictions. As of the 2006-2007 school year, students with pre-college drug convictions are no longer penalized.

While the Los Angeles Times reported the stipend covers about $400, Wasserman described it as a ‘symbolic gesture to protest a law that we view as unjust.’ The stipend also serves to show that Berkeley students are ‘putting our money where our mouth is,’ Wasserman said.

The U.S. Department of Education reported that almost two thirds of Americans received aid – be it public or private – during the 2003-2004 school year.

It is unclear if a similar proposal would pass through Syracuse University’s Student Association like it did for the Berkeley student government.

‘If this is what the students wanted us to look into, we could,’ said SA President Ryan Kelly. ‘We also have to think practically. If you bring something to us, we’ll fight as long as it’s practical.’

The passing of such a controversial program warranted research on the amendment. Collaboration with the Judicial Board would be necessary to ensure no university statutes were being broken, he said.

Critics of the Berkeley proposal disagree with the allocation of federal tax dollars to convicted felons, an idea junior history and political science major Evan Penayi echoed Thursday.

‘If those are the rules, you have to live by them,’ said Penayi, who personally receives aid. ‘If you want to do drugs, don’t do it on the (government’s) money.’

‘The university doesn’t come off well giving money to convicted felons,’ he said.

In an e-mail, Dean of Financial Aid Chris Walsh said while he disagrees with the amendment, SU is obligated to comply. No SU students have lost their federal aid because of a drug conviction, he said.

The Berkeley bill, which included co-sponsorship from 10 of the 20 senators, enables the school to join the ranks of Yale University, Swarthmore College, Hampshire College and Western Washington University as institutions allowing students deemed ineligible by FAFSA standards to receive money.

Students for Sensible Drug Policy, a grassroots organization that analyzes the effects of both drug abuse and drug policy on society, has been pushing for a reevaluation of the policy since it went into affect in 2000. More than 200,000 students have been declared ineligible for loans, grants or work-study programs since the bill went into effect, according to its Web site.

‘This one size fits all policy mandated from Washington takes away decision making power from campus officials who know what’s best for students and their institution,’ said Tom Angell, campaigns director at SSDP.

‘More and more students, experts and even members of Congress are starting to realize that this penalty hurts not only the individual but society as a whole,’ he said.

Rep. Mark Souder, an Indiana Republican, has said he views the amendment as necessary tool in the war on drugs. Souder, who is also the author of the statute, has stood firmly behind his policy in light of all the attention the Berkeley decision has brought to the issue.

On his Web site, Souder explained his position: ‘A student who knows that his financial aid could be suspended if he’s convicted of a drug crime will be less likely to use or deal drugs in the first place.’

Numerous phone calls to Souder’s Washington D.C., office went unreturned.

Wasserman, the UC Berkley senator, said he disagrees with the congressman.

‘There is no evidence that shows this law detours students from using drugs,’ he said. ‘What specifics we do have show us that people who graduate from college make over two times more in their lifetime than people who only graduate with a high school degree.’

Published on March 1, 2007 at 12:00 pm