Aid law smokes some students

Under a little-known caveat to a federal law, students convicted of minor marijuana offenses… Under a little-known caveat to a federal law, students convicted of minor marijuana offenses are seeing their financial aid go up in smoke.

The Drug Offender Exclusionary Provision of the Higher Education Act is a law that, according to Department of Education numbers, has affected more than 200,000 students since its inception in 2000.

The law established that students convicted of possession or sale of a controlled substance can be declared ineligible for federal financial aid – making college a monetary impossibility for many.

Under the law, a student with one conviction for possession is ineligible for aid for one year – two years after a second offense and indefinitely after a third offense.

Students convicted of selling drugs are only allowed two strikes. The first offense for sale precludes eligibility for two years, but after the second offense the student is indefinitely ineligible for aid.

When students fill out their Free Application for Student Aid (FAFSA) forms, they are asked if they have ever been convicted of possession or sale of drugs. Those who answer “yes” or leave the space blank are sent additional forms that ask them to explain the nature of their convictions.

After review of the additional forms, a determination is made regarding the applicant’s eligibility for aid. Convictions that occurred too long ago, when the applicant was a minor, or that have since been expunged do not affect the applicant’s eligibility.

Pitt follows a “zero tolerance” policy, Georgine Materniak said, interim student conduct officer at Pitt. “Anything that is not legal, we are addressing.”

Depending on the amount of marijuana students are caught with, charges can range from disciplinary referrals to actual arrests, according to Pitt police officer Ron Bennett.

In 2006, 43 drug offenders were arrested for marijuana violations at Pitt. Fourteen of those arrests occurred in on-campus housing, according to the Pitt Police website. Twenty-two offenders received disciplinary referrals last year, 18 of whom were caught in on-campus residential buildings,

Once a student is caught, whether he is arrested or not, the Pitt police are required to make a report to the school and to the Judicial Board.

The Judicial Board is an organization set up to determine if accused students are responsible for the alleged charges they face and to assign penalties for them when necessary. The process operates on two levels and seeks to both educate the student and penalize the student for their actions, Materniak said, adding that repeat offenders are subject to more severe consequences.

Offenders must attend an educational conference with an advocate, usually a law student employed by the school, pay a fine ($50 for a first offense, $100 for a second), perform some community service (five to 10 hours for a first offense and 10 to 15 for a second) and parents are always notified.

According to Materniak, the vast majority of cases are settled in this initial educational conference.

For cases that are not so easily settled, a full hearing is necessary. A faculty administrator acting in the capacity of a hearing officer will listen to the student’s defense. That student’s defense can include his advocate and any witnesses he or she may wish to present.

Once all parties are content, the hearing officer decides on the appropriate sanctions and refers the case to vice provost and dean of students Kathy Humphrey, who gets the final say.

But it is only in very rare circumstances that a student’s case gets assigned to a full hearing like this, Materniak said.

“Mistakes are made, that’s part of growing up. We want to help students move along, develop and take care of themselves,” she said.

Many groups are currently working against this little known by-law in the war on drugs, claiming that the consequences are much too severe for the crimes in question.

The advocacy group Students for a Sensible Drug Policy is very active in the political process, fighting against what they consider to be counterproductive and ridiculous drug policies.

One of the main points of contention is that students lose their financial aid when convicted of possession of even small amounts of marijuana, while students convicted of violent or sexual crimes are subject to the same consequences.

The estimated 200,000 students who have been affected by this law thus far “only account for people who actually filled out the form correctly,” SSDP member Tom Angell said.

There is no way to tell how many others left the question about drug convictions blank or were too discouraged to even attempt an application and the actual number of affected students is probably much higher, he added.

SSDP and other advocacy groups enjoyed a small victory in February 2006, when in response to pressure from students and other advocacy groups, Congress scaled back the law, suspending financial aid for only those students currently receiving it when convicted. Under the original law, a conviction negated all federal financial aid, whether the person was currently enrolled in school and receiving aid or not.

“It’s a step in the right direction but there are still tens of thousands of students every year being forced to drop out when their aid is suspended,” Angell said. “This law is directed at us, at our generation, so it’s up to us to fight back against it.”