Unless you've been living under a rock for the last four years, you probably know that the United States is engaged in a costly and troubling war in Iraq.
The more astute reader will also remember that the United States is fighting another ongoing war in Afghanistan (which I think is somewhere near Turkmenistan). However, there is another longstanding conflict about which we do not hear so often.
It is a war that is costing U.S. taxpayers an estimated $600 every second, and holds the statistically uncontested place as the least successful war in U.S. history. I'm speaking, of course, about the war on drugs.""
In the name of disclosure, I must admit some things before we proceed (just to be fair and balanced.) I am not a pot smoker. That said, any of you who may have seen me at a party smoking ""reefer"" should know I do so only to keep up appearances. Furthermore, like our auspicious 42nd president, I never inhale. Let us proceed.
Most of you know that college can be difficult. Four years of relative malnourishment, all-nighters and a constant barrage of questions. Always with the questions. For many students the most troubling of these questions over the last decade has been question 31 on the Free Application for Federal Student Aid.
In 1998, President Clinton signed a provision that, in part, banned federal financial aid to students who have been convicted of any drug related offense - even misdemeanor possessions.
Keeping the aforementioned in mind, a felony conviction for a serious violent crime brings no such penalty. In penning the law, politicians seemed to ignore the fact that, according to jurisprudence, the affected individuals had already paid their ""debt to society.""
The law suspends first-time drug offenders from receiving student aid for one year. Second-time offenders are ineligible for two years, and multiple repeat offenders are barred indefinitely.
Furthermore, because the stipulation affects federal financial aid, students with drug related transgressions from more affluent families are unaffected. In essence, all this legislation does is prohibit non-violent lower and middle class students from attaining a college degree and the upward social and economic mobility that comes with it.
Instead of reaching out to these historically marginalized people, Congress has only further marginalized these would-be students. Talk about a damaging ""joint session.""
It has been estimated that this policy has denied at least 180,000 students financial aid since its inception. These students have, in effect, been punished twice.
In most cases judges already have the power to revoke federal aid if they see fit. The ""Aid Elimination Penalty"" has simply usurped this power from the judiciary and penalized without any discretion.
It is at least worth noting that to be eligible for aid under the Higher Education Act students must have reasonably high grades. Therefore, this bill adds insult to injury by only punishing students who are doing well in school.
Since the aim is reducing crime on college campuses, this measure is ludicrously antithetical considering that according to the Federal Bureau of Prisons, there is an inverse relationship between repeated offender rates and education, and persons who studied at least two years in college are six times less likely to be arrested when compared to the national average.
Perhaps now you are wondering, ""But Matt, what can UW-Madison students do?"" In this case I would recommend that we implement a measure similar to UC-Berkeley's fledgling policy. Earlier this year, Berkeley's student government began awarding scholarships to students that had their aid revoked due to misdemeanor possessions. While the scholarships are not large (around $400,) it stands as an opportunity to draw attention to a glaring social injustice. Also, in a country where even ""bong hits 4 Jesus"" are crimes, it makes a huge statement.
Matt Jividen is a senior majoring in history. Please send responses to_ ""opinion@dailycardinal.com."":mailto:opinion@dailycardinal.com
