Reversing the War on the Poor

Members of Congress introduced a bill last Thursday that seeks to reverse the effects of a Higher Education Act provision many critics believe is another example of how America's war on drugs has evolved into a war on black and poor people.

The Removing Impediments to Students' Education Act (RISE), authored by Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), would restore eligibility for federal aid to qualified students from low- and middle-income families and eliminate the need for the question about drug convictions on the free application for federal student aid.

Since the bill was introduced in February 2003, 69 other representatives in Congress have signed on as co-sponsors – the most co-sponsors ever on a bill to repeal the drug provision, according to Chris Mulligan, communications director of the Coalition for Higher Education Act Reform. Currently, the Solomon-Souder amendment to the HEA Act of 1965 blocks ex-drug offenders from receiving federal student aid. The bill was introduced by Rep. Mark Souder (R-Ind.) in 1998 and has received sharp criticism from drug policy reform activists.

Since the enactment of the provision, over 165,000 applicants with prior drug convictions have been denied federal student aid, according to Department of Education figures.

Proponents of the measure say the law is not as harsh as critics maintain. The ineligibility period lasts for one year for a first possession offense and two years for a first-dealing offense, but is indefinite for repeat offenders.  Despite that, critics say the law unfairly targets low-income and minority applicants, particularly blacks who disproportionately make up the majority of convictions for drug offenses.

While only 15 percent of the nation's drug users, blacks constitute 36 percent of those arrested for drug violations, over 42 percent of those in federal prison and 57 percent in state prison, according to Justice Department statistics.  The result of the HEA Act provision in the black community is a form of "modern day slavery," according to Rep. Bobby Rush (D-Ill.), who is one of the co-sponsors of the RISE Act.

"The provision is targeted toward black youth, males and is a form of economic entrapment which results in further colonizing a vast segment of the community," Rush said. "We are denying opportunities to young black men and women to continue the education process."

"The effect is to remove anyone associated with drug use or selling to ever achieving economic stability in this society," Rush continued. "The economic impact of this is horrendous in the total black community. This has the potential for making literally thousands – blacks, primarily – nothing more than second- or third-class citizens.  It's like creating an economic underclass of men and women who will have no relevance to the larger society."

Others critics of the Souder provision, like the Students for Sensible Drug Policy's Tom Angell, said denying non-violent drug offenders federal student aid while ignoring other violent crimes makes no sense.

"I have a hard time finding the justification and rational for this provision," Angell said. "Souder's first instinct was to strip students with drug offenses without even thinking about other offenses such as rape or arson."

"Drug laws have a disproportionate affect on the black community. This is keeping blacks out of school at a higher rate than the general population," added Angell.

Most of the critics of the current provision say it's a vestige of the racially-biased drug laws that unfairly target poor and black communities and have led to the explosion of black prison population.

"The war on drugs has continually ramped up over the past several decades. One of the reasons for doing that is to keep our lives safe, but we have seen – after growing up in this war on drugs – it's putting us at more harm by taking away our access to education," Angell said.