By Nick Katzenbach

Students for a Sensible Drug Policy (SSDP) has rallied support from the Wesleyan Student Assembly (WSA) and is soliciting the Administration to set up provisions for students affected by recent changes in Congress’s Higher Education Act. In 1998 Congress passed an amendment to the act that clips federal financial aid for students who have been tried as adults and subsequently convicted of drug-related offenses.

The Higher Education Act, first documented in the 60’s, has provided extensive opportunities for American’s since its birth. Loan programs, work-study funding and scholarship grants have all been established in accordance with the act.

The HEA is reviewed by Congress on a regular basis to ensure the highest level of resources for college students, particularly those seeking financial assistance.

Federal financial aid is not the same as the aid provided by a particular university. For example, in 1999 federal financial aid made up a mere 8.7% of the University’s funding, while 85% percent of all aid given was money raised by the University.

The new provision has affected about 8000 out of around 10,000,000 (less than .1%) students nationwide. Recently it has stirred up some criticism and has been the subject of a number of protests from college students across the country.

The issue was brought to the University when Sara Strickland ’03 returned from the Democratic Shadow Convention in Los Angeles. The convention held panels and discussions which highlighted the perceived problems with the War on Drugs both in America and across the globe.

Strickland was particularly struck by the issues surrounding the amendment to the HEA, and brought her concerns to the Wesleyan branch of Students for Sensible Drug Policy (SSDP), a national organization which strongly opposes the act.

The SSDP set up tables in MoCon and the Campus Center and plastered the campus with flyers in an effort to raise awareness of the issues surrounding the new drug provision.

"The act will disproportionately effect minorities because they are convicted of drug offenses at a much higher rate than whites despite the fact that they use drugs with roughly the same frequency," said Anne Ward ’02, a member of Wesleyan SSDP.

This past October the SSDP made further steps towards repealing the anti-drug clause of the HEA when they brought the issue before the WSA.

The SSDP disagreed with the act for several reasons. According to SSDP the act hurt working families because most drug convictions are among lower class families, in which students need financial help the most.

"The act definitely has implications of a class-bias," said Freddye Hill, Dean of the College. "It’s unfair to poor people because they may not have the resources to complete their education."

The SSDP also sees the act targeting minorities because they are statistically more likely to be convicted of drug offenses than Caucasians.

The SSDP said the only way to truly combat drug addiction is through education, so to deny education to those convicted of drug-related offenses is in direct opposition to this goal.

"Ironically, this act will hurt those people who need education the most. It is counterproductive to deny an education to people who are already at risk," said Danny Gillam ’04 of Wesleyan SSDP.

Other issues raised by the drug provision include the argument that although financial aid can be restored by its drug-offending recipient upon successful completion of a treatment program, most students who do not have money to pay for college are not likely to have money to pay for private treatment.

The issue of alcohol is also an important topic of national organizations combating the drug provision. That cutting financial aid for underage students caught either intoxicated or in possession of alcohol has never been seriously considered by Congress is considered hypocritical by many students.

In the effort to pass the resolution, the SSDP surveyed the student body and brought the student’s supportive response to the forefront of their meeting with the WSA.

"I don’t think I’ve met any student who is not in support of the repeal," said Adam Hurter ’02, a member of the SSDP.

Some students have a different opinion.

"I feel very strongly against drug use," said Zin Balsamo ’04. "I would rather see financial aid money go to a non-drug offending student in need, rather than one who has been convicted of drug-related offenses."

The resolution against the drug provision was approved unanimously at the meeting with the WSA.

"There was no opposition to support the SSDP," said Michael Lewis ’03, Vice President of the WSA.

"The passage of this resolution is a great step toward our goal of repealing the drug provision," said Daniel Gelbtuch ’03, a member of the SSDP. "Its good to know that we not only have the support of the student body, but also the student assembly in our quest to provide fair access to scholarship money for people who need it most."