Julie Brown’s self-righteous sense of justice is a bit misguided. Perhaps she has not considered the Higher Education Act provision that denies aid to students convicted of a drug offense is, for one thing, racist.
A disproportionate number of people who are convicted of drug-related crimes, or any crime for that matter, are minorities. For example, although Blacks make up only about 13 percent of the U.S. population, they represent 46 percent of those imprisoned in 1999 (www.sentencingproject.org/brief/brief.htm).
For another thing, the HEA provision is classist.
Rehabilitation is often prohibitively expensive for the poor. Whereas an upper-class boy who gets caught smoking pot might be able to pay for rehab and or his own education, those of us who cannot are further harmed because we are denied the chance to go to school, further our education, and perhaps stop using drugs.
This might help explain why the Undergraduate Student Government hopes to repeal a provision that demands a drug user to complete a rehab program before receiving aid. In addition, the true drug problem on college campuses is not weed – it is alcohol. There are no laws requiring a person convicted of underage drinking or driving under the influence to be denied their financial aid.
I agree with Julie that one should be prepared to face the consequences of their actions, but only when the consequences fit the crime. In Russell Selkirk’s case, his fine and having to deal with biased police who undoubtedly treated him like a degenerate is punishment enough. For more information about the HEA and the Drug War visit www.drcnet.org and decide for yourself what is fair.
Natalie E. WelshJuniorEnglish
