Running head: INJUSTICE OF THE DRUG FREE STUDENT AID PROVISION

Injustice of the Drug Free Student Aid Provision

Kelly Chambers
Siena Heights University
December 2, 2016

INJUSTICE OF THE DRUG FREE STUDENT AID PROVISION

The 1998 reauthorization of the Higher Education Act of 1965 included a new and
unheard of provision that reversed the standing federal policy of increasing access to higher
education for all members of society. The Drug-Free Student Aid Provision that was introduced
with the reauthorization now denies federal financial aid, such as access to Pell Grants and
federal student loans, to any individual who admits to having been convicted of the possession or
the sale of controlled substances at any point in their lifetime (Section 483, 1998). This new
provision has greatly impacted many who are socioeconomically disadvantaged and minorities in
America trying to elevate themselves to a higher standard of living through the pursuit of a
higher education certification.
For Jackson College, like all organizations of higher education, this provision resulted in
vast declines in minority student enrollments and affected the colleges ability to effectively meet
its organizational values of inclusion. The provision was very quietly entered into the world of
higher education by an act of federal government and the final details of the provision took many
organizations and students by complete surprise. The provisions immediate effect limited both
students and college officials from being able to seek out other funding sources to continue their
education.
Additionally, due to the overall loss of student headcount, Jackson Colleges organization
budget support from state and federal sources were impacted. This combined loss in funding
negatively impacted the educational and support services the college was able to offer to all
students. Services and staff had to be reduced in order to accommodate for the profound loss.
Ultimately the introduction of the provision adversely impacted all key stakeholders of the
organization, with extremely limited means for corrective action. As an employee of the
organization, I not only witnessed changes in our student population, but also had to encounter

INJUSTICE OF THE DRUG FREE STUDENT AID PROVISION

and contend with vast layoffs that occurred as a result of the lost in students and funding. This
provision continues to limit our ability to effectively meet our core mission of equal higher
education access for all citizens regardless of past mistakes, whether they are academic, financial
or legal.
As Curry (2001) explains the intent of the Higher Education Act of 1965 was to, delimit
educational opportunities and access to the coagulated population in greatest need of the
liberating and transforming power of higher education (p. 34). However, the 1998 Amendment
has dramatically affected the same population that the original Act was intended to subjugate, the
poor and racial minorities. This in large part is due to another social injustice that has targeted
this same population; as Kerby (2016) explains the war on drugs in our country has been waged
primarily against our communities of color. As she goes on to conclude, statistics clearly shows
that people of color are more likely to receive higher offenses and be formally changed even as
youth for minor drug possessions. According to the Human Rights Watch Co-Director SanchezMoreno (2016), research shows that people of color are no more likely to use or sell illegal drugs
than white Americans, however they have drastically higher rate of arrests. The harsh reality in
America is that blacks comprise 14 percent of regular drug users but account for 47 percent of
drug offense arrests annually; this shows the vast disproportion of convictions affecting this
population. She continues to explain that from 1980 to 2007 about one in three of the 25.4
million adults arrested for drugs were blacks. This in turn has meant that the Drug-Free Student
Aid Provision has a higher and more devastating impact for minority students of color than any
other student population.
America drug conviction injustice combined with the Drug-Free Student Aid Provision
has reduced the rates of black Americans that can understand the great benefits of higher

INJUSTICE OF THE DRUG FREE STUDENT AID PROVISION

education. While the intent of the policy was to deter students and other citizens from engaging
in the use or trade of illegal substances, the reality is the policy has done nothing more than
remove access to one of this nation's primary mechanisms of social mobility from those
individuals who are in the most need. Many in these situations understand their past mistakes and
are trying to use higher education as a means to escape the cycle of drugs and its associated
companions-race, poverty, and disadvantage. Additionally, this provision has had impact on those
attempting to fulfill the obligations and stipulations of their parole; according to The Journal of
Blacks in Higher Education (1998) employment and education advancement are often used as
stipulations for parole for drug convictions and without access to federal aid to assist in this
endeavor, parolees are doomed to re-enter correctional facilities that cost tax-payers millions.
They further conclude that this provision is in fact forcing black youth back towards the cycle of
poverty and crime plus there are no statistics to support that the provision has in any way
improved the overall drug pandemic rampant in America.
According to Department of Education data, about 47,000 of the 10.5 million applicants
for federal financial aid in the 2000-2001 academic year following this policy change lost
eligibility for some or all of their assistance because of past drug convictions (37,705) or they
failed to answer the question (9,358) about drug use on the FAFSA which also eliminates ability
to receive funds (Burd, 2002). The negative implications of the Drug-Free Student Aid Provision
have been both disconcerting and counterproductive to the original intent of the Higher
Education Act and succeeding amendments due to its intentional or unintentional biased against
racial minorities already burdened by complicity present in our criminal justice system. The
stated intent of the new policy was to motivate individuals to abandon and/or abstain from
participation in the world of substance abuse, specifically illicit drugs. However, if the rationale

INJUSTICE OF THE DRUG FREE STUDENT AID PROVISION

is truly to keep people clean and out of the world of criminal drug activity, denying the ability to
increase income and lifestyle through appropriate means should not be the punishment for last
errors in judgement (Anti-Drug Law Backfires, 2002).
Mayotte (2015) explains that improvements were finally introduced in 2009; prior to this
time a single conviction of any type would result in immediate and permanent ineligibility for
federal student aid. An amendment to the provision has offered a more granular look at
convictions allowing funding back into the hands of those with minor infractions, and only
penalize if the crime was committed during a time when the student was already receiving
federal student aid. This was a vast improvement on the previous provision, but still does little to
help a student that makes a mistake moving forward. According to Morgan, Argenti, DeBaun and
Melnick (2016) even with new provisions, billions of dollars of federal and state funds are not
assessable by anyone; this is in large part because those that meet the financial low-income status
cannot access funds due to previous drug convictions. Additionally, they note that most lowincome students with previous drug convictions are not aware of improvements to the regulation
and therefore have given up hope of ever applying to attend college. This is a sad sentence to
continue to try to survive with limited education and limited hope for an improved way of life.
In conclusion, this is still a policy even with improved provisions is one of limited
forgiveness that does little to help address the addiction and drug issue within the United States
and has done nothing more than prevent access to higher education plus ultimately penalize all
students and college stakeholders at public and low-cost institutions like community colleges.
According to Lederman (2005) the Government Accountability Office reports that the more
education a person receives, the less likely they are to commit crimes and rely upon public
assistance; this drug provision not only hurts determined individuals trying to move on with their

INJUSTICE OF THE DRUG FREE STUDENT AID PROVISION

lives, it makes our streets less safe and causes an unnecessary drain on taxpayers long term. This
provision like many shows the snowballing effect that one social issue, in proportionate drug
convictions of black Americans, can have on another, access to affordable higher education. All
too many times, social issues in our country are hard to isolate to just one issue as they are a
myriad of interwoven issues of social injustice.
Having personally seen the effects that this provision has had on the community college
and low income minority communities, the only socially responsible thing to do would be for our
lawmakers to review the vast amounts of data and to repeal this harmful and ineffective act in its
entirety. Lawmakers and the criminal justice system need to work together on developing better
alternatives for trying to deter and prevent drug sales in our communities and streets plus focus
less on penalization and more on rehabilitation to which access to education is paramount. Data
shows that this provision has failed to improve the quality of life and meet its intent and is doing
more harm than good.

INJUSTICE OF THE DRUG FREE STUDENT AID PROVISION

References:
Anti-drug law backfires. (2002, April 25). USA Today, p. 10A.
Argenti C., DeBaun B., Melnich S. & Morgan E., (2016). FAFSA completion rates in US cities.
National College Access Network, p.9. Washington District of Columbia.
Burd, S. (2002, April 5). Seeking redemption for a drug law. Chronicle of Higher Education, p.
A17. College Board. New York: Author.
Curry, D. (2001, September 7). U.S. may relax ban on aid for those with drug convictions.
Chronicle of Higher Education, p. A34.
Felony disenfranchisement removes 1.4 million black men from the society. (1998). The Journal
of Blacks in Higher Education, (22), 61-62. doi:10.2307/2998843
Kerby, S. (2015, March 02). The top 10 most startling facts about people of color and criminal
justice in the United States. Retrieved November 14, 2016, from
http://houstoncommunistparty.com/the-top-10-most-startling-facts-about-people-of-colorand-criminal-justice-in-the-united-states/
Lederman, D. (2005, September 28). Drug law denies aid to thousands. Retrieved November 16,
2016, from https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2005/09/28/drug
Mayotte, B. (2015, April 15). Drug convictions can send financial aid up in smoke. Retrieved
November 28, 2016, from http://www.usnews.com/education/blogs/student-loanranger/2015/04/15/drug-convictions-can-send-financial-aid-up-in-smoke
McFarland Sanchez-Moreno, M. (2016, September 26). Winning the war on drugs by ending it.
Retrieved November 14, 2016, from https://www.hrw.org/blog-feed/us-election-andhuman-rights#blog-294553

INJUSTICE OF THE DRUG FREE STUDENT AID PROVISION

Section 483 - 1998 amendments to Higher Education Act of 1965. (1998, January 27). Retrieved
November 26, 2016, from http://www.ed.gov/policy/highered/leg/hea98/sec483.html