On Tuesday, March 13, 2001, Mount Holyoke's Student Government Association voted to endorse the HEA reform resolution! .

Our next step, with the endorsement of the SGA behind us, is to collect Mount Holyoke faculty signatures on our educator sign-on letter. These signatures will be presented with the resolution to our congress-people to urge them to support Barney Frank's bill, H.R. 786, which, if passed, will repeal the 1998 drug provision found in the Higher Education Act of 1965.

Obviously, to accomplish these lofty goals, we need help from you. Sign an endorsement card, either by contacting an SSDP member or on this website, and make your voice heard.

What is the HEA drug provision?

A provision of the Higher Education Act of 1998 delays or denies federal financial aid eligibility to any individual convicted of a state or federal drug offense. Drug possession convictions result in ineligibilityfor 1 year (first offense), 2 years (second offense), or indefinitely (third offense). Drug sale convictions result in ineligibility for 2 years (first offense) or indefinitely (second offense). Students may receive early restoration of benefits by completing a treatment program that fulfills guidelines set by the U.S. Department of Education. Ineligibility applies to all forms of federal financial aid, including grants, student loans, and work-study.

Why HEA Reform?

• Blocking Access to education is counter-productive
  Access to education is essential if young people are to enter the mainstream of society and the economy. Blocking access to education to those already risk marginalization from prior involvement with drugs, and from economic disadvantagement, is counter to the interests of both the individual and society. The vast majority of young people convicted of a drug offense are convicted of simple, non-violent possesion (e.g. approximately 87% of the 695,000 marijuana arrests made by state and local police in 1997 were for possession offenses-U.S.Department of Justice, 1998
• The HEA drug provision will hurt working families
  Denying financial aid hurts only those students who need the aid, namely, children of working families. Citizens of modest means are more likely to be arrested for minor offenses, less likely to be effectively represented by legal counsel, and more likely to be dependent upon financial aid than students from wealthier families.
• It will have a discriminatory impact
  The provision will have a racially discriminatory effect, because drug law enforcement is disproportionately focused on African-Americanand Latino communities. For instance, African-Americans make up 13% of the U.S. population and an estimated 13% of drug users, but represent 55% of drug convictions and more than 70% of those incarcerated for drug- related offenses (U.S. Department of Justice, 1998).
• It does not increase funding for drug abuse treatment programs
  While the current law does allow for the re-instatement of aid eligibility after a period of drug treatment, the provision does not take into account the scarcity of affordable drug treatment slots.According to the U.S. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 48% of current treatment needs (excluding alcohol treatment) are unmet in the United States.
• The provision is unnecessary and arbitrary
  Judges can already strip an individual of eligibility for federal benefits as individual cases warrant. As it is, this provision represents a special, extra-judicial penalty that can be imposed only on drug offenders. No other class of offense, including violent offenses, predatory offenses, or alcohol-related offenses, carries with it the automatic denial of federal financial aid eligibility.
• It will not help solve our nation's drug problem
  Substance abuse is a serious national problem, but blocking the path toward an education is an inappropriate response. Closing the doors of our colleges and universities, thereby making it more difficult for those most at-risk to succeed, is not a policy fit for an advanced society such as ours.