Education dollars up in smoke

Mitch Daniels’ disorderly persons conviction for marijuana possession is now being used by a national coalition as an example of what they see as one of the drug war’s greatest flaws: its effect on higher education. “If a second chance was good enough for Mitch Daniels in 1970, then it’s good enough for the class of 2004,” said Scott Ehlers, outreach director for the Coalition for Higher Education Act Reform (CHEAR). The Higher Education Act denies federal financial aid to students who have been convicted of drug-related offenses.

Mitch Daniels

CHEAR’s supporters include the American Public Health Association, the NAACP, the NEA, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America and a myriad of other groups. It is particularly prominent on college campuses through the Students for Sensible Drug Policy.

Daniels campaign spokeswoman Ellen Whitt said that the candidate “believes in rules, limits and consequences, particularly when taxpayers are providing aid and conditions are clear and made in advance.” She also stressed that Daniels did not receive any federal financial aid when he attended Princeton as a member of the class of 1971.

“When the HEA Drug Provision is repealed there will continue to be consequences for drug offenders, namely a criminal conviction and punishment by the criminal justice system,” Ehlers said.

The Daniels campaign Web site promises that Daniels will “take politics out of education” with several measures.

Tina Noel, spokeswoman for Gov. Kernan, said, “In general, the governor is opposed to closing options for people accessing federal aid.” CHEAR approves of this general position and urged the governor to take a firm stance.
The governor has said that he used marijuana several times in his 20s. He has not given specific dates.

The Higher Education Act is a federal law that governs financial aid for college students. In 1998, Indiana Congressman Mark Souder, a Republican, introduced a provision into the law that banned federal aid for students who had “been convicted of any offense under any federal or state law involving the possession or sale of a controlled substance.” The law grants exceptions for those who have entered drug rehabilitation programs.

But those programs are often not affordable for the poor and middle class, who need federal aid the most. Ehlers says the Department of Education estimates that over 150,000 people have been denied aid and asks, “Why should only lower- and middle-income students be denied an education because of minor drug offenses, while the wealthy get to learn from their mistakes and move on with their lives?”

Souder has co-sponsored the Second Chance Act, which would allow students who committed a drug offense while not already receiving aid to do so. Souder spokesman Martin Green says, “Since the draconian interpretation by the Clinton Administration, Mr. Souder has been furious” with the way the law was implemented.

The Clinton Administration applied the law to students who were not already receiving aid.

President Bush supports Souder’s version of reform, although under his tenure the Department of Education has interpreted the law in the same way as the Clinton Administration. CHEAR supports the Second Chance Act as an “incremental” reform.

Green says it’s a testament to the legislative process that six years have passed with no changes to the law, but that its necessary reauthorization this year represents a good chance for the reform to pass. He says it will deter students from using drugs when properly interpreted so that students don’t “fritter away” federal money.

Democratic Rep. Barney Frank of Massachusetts has introduced a bill that would repeal the drug provision in total. CHEAR supports his bill.

Ehlers says that Souder’s presence in Indiana makes taking a stance on the Higher Education Act provision important for the gubernatorial candidates. “The governor could call up Representative Souder to ask him to change his position.”

He also said that it would be “wonderful” if the state would contribute the portion of aid that federal law denies to students with drug convictions. Even if legislators were open to the idea, it seems unlikely given the state’s budget problems.