Drug measure detrimental to “˜equal opportunity’

EDITORIAL BOARD Christine Byrd
 Editor in Chief

Michael Litschi
 Managing Editor

Jonah Lalas
 Viewpoint Editor

Barbara Ortutay
 News Editor

Amy Golod
 Staff Representative

Timothy Kudo
 Staff Representative

Brian O’Camb
 Staff Representative

  Unsigned editorials represent a majority opinion of
the Daily Bruin Editorial Board. All other columns, letters and
artwork represent the opinions of their authors.   All
submitted material must bear the author’s name, address, telephone
number, registration number, or affiliation with UCLA. Names will
not be withheld except in extreme cases.   The Bruin
complies with the Communication Board’s policy prohibiting the
publication of articles that perpetuate derogatory cultural or
ethnic stereotypes.   When multiple authors submit
material, some names may be kept on file rather than published with
the material. The Bruin reserves the right to edit submitted
material and to determine its placement in the paper. All
submissions become the property of The Bruin. The Communications
Board has a media grievance procedure for resolving complaints
against any of its publications. For a copy of the complete
procedure, contact the Publications office at 118 Kerckhoff Hall.
Daily Bruin 118 Kerckhoff Hall 308 Westwood Plaza Los Angeles, CA
90024 (310)825-9898

Earlier this year, the federal government passed a law that
denies financial aid to college students who have been convicted of
drug-related offenses. This measure perpetuates the unsuccessful
War on Drugs and blatantly targets young people, especially those
from minority communities and low-income backgrounds. It is a
biased law, and the university should vigorously oppose it.

This provision, which Congress added to the Higher Education Act
of 1998, requires individuals to report drug-related crimes on
their Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA). Those
convicted of such offenses may be eligible for financial aid.
Information released by the US Department of Education shows this
affects thousands of financial aid applicants.

Because of the law, 1,327 applicants were deemed ineligible,
while 5,675 were partially ineligible. A total of 7,000 students
were adversely affected by the law.

It is easy to see how the law disproportionately affects
lower-income students. Poor students who depend on financial aid to
attend a prestigious university such as UCLA may be excluded from
higher education without federal financial aid. However, an
affluent student convicted of similar charges and deemed ineligible
for financial aid will still find higher education within their
financial grasp.

Under the provision, a conviction for possession of marijuana or
for using ecstasy, cocaine, or any other drug, will deny financial
aid to all applicants, but will specifically deny the opportunity
for education to the poor.

How can we continue to believe in the idea of “equal
opportunity” if the laws we live by rob people of opportunity
based on their wealth?

This law is especially appalling given the recent successful
attempts in some states to reform drug laws and provide money for
treatment programs instead of punishment.

In our own state, voters passed Proposition 36, the initiative
that proposes to treat nonviolent drug offenders through
rehabilitation programs instead of time in prison.

This new drug provision passed by Congress simply represents an
effort by proponents of the war on drugs to hold on to their dying
ideology.

The bottom line is that minors are certain to make errors while
growing up, including errors involving drug use. Denying these
minors access to college by holding back financial aid withholds
opportunities to make progress and move on.

Even if we assume for argument’s sake that we support the
law’s intentions, the law itself is vague and poorly
thought-out. While 7,000 students will not get full financial aid
because they answered the question truthfully, it’s unclear
what will happen to the nearly 800,000 who didn’t answer the
question at all.

How will the government enforce this law? How can they ensure
that students answer the questions truthfully? Clearly, the
vagueness of the law reflects the lack of thought involved in
forming it.

Universities asked to enforce this law must realize the
potential effect it will have on their accessibility. If UCLA
values offering individuals an equal opportunity for education and
diversity, then it should vehemently express its disagreement with
the law by not enforcing it. Enforcing the law serves to exacerbate
the disadvantages of students from lower socioeconomic
backgrounds.

We encourage those students concerned about the ramifications of
the law to voice their discontent. Drug addicts should be treated,
not denied an opportunity for education.

We encourage both students and the university to take action
against this counterproductive law in order to ensure the
accessibility of UCLA to students from all backgrounds.

As long as this law remains on the books, and as long as
universities such as ours comply with it, “equal
opportunity” will simply be a myth.