Forty-three percent of Dartmouth students have used marijuana one or more times, according to a 1998 College survey, yet recent changes in federal financial aid policies that deny aid to students with drug-convictions have yet to impact the campus.
Beginning this fall, students convicted of drug-related offenses -- from drug-dealing to possessing the smallest amount of marijuana -- were no longer eligible for federal financial aid, such as federally-funded students loans, grants, and work-study.
And according to Raiseyourvoice.com, a website devoted to advocating against this new provision, over 7,500 students had their aid revoked this past fall as a result.
Such changes were the result of a new provision of the 1965 Higher Education Act that was passed in October 1998.
The process of enforcing the act began last year, when the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) -- paperwork all students applying for federal financial aid must file -- for the first time asked students if they had ever been convicted of violating state or federal drug laws.
If the student answered yes, the he or she became ineligible for aid for at least a year after the date of the conviction and possibly two years or "indefinitely" for repeated violations or drug-dealing convictions.
And students now filing the FAFSA for the 2001-2002 academic year cannot leave the question blank either -- a loophole that left many students off the hook this past year -- or they too will be ineligible for federal financial aid.
However, several loopholes still remain.
Any juvenile convictions -- cases in which the student was under 18 and not tried as an adult -- do not count at all. Alcohol and tobacco violations will not result in sanctions either.
And should the student undergo a rehabilitation program -- including two follow-up drug tests and meeting other federal standards -- he or she can regain eligibility sooner than a year after conviction, possibly by the next academic term.
Although a student could simply deny a having any previous drug convictions on the FAFSA form, should the application be investigated and found to be falsified, such a student would face fines of up to $10,000 and/or a prison sentence.
Since the Higher Education Act's passage in 1965, judges have had the discretion to deny drug convicts federal financial aid monies, but this new provision marks the first time there is an automatic, across-the-board restriction.
But according to Director of Financial Aid Virginia Hazen, no Dartmouth students have lost federal financial aid due to the new provision this year. "No cases have ever come to my attention," Hazen said.
For although the 2000 Dartmouth College Annual Security Report shows that 13 students were arrested by the Hanover Police for drug-related violations in 1999, such arrests have apparently not resulted in convictions for any students on financial aid.
According to Senior Associate Dean of the College Daniel Nelson, "courts don't routinely share that information [number of drug convictions] with the College, and of course not all arrests lead to convictions."
Furthermore, "the burden of reporting a criminal conviction rests legally with the individual student," Nelson added, although were the College to find out through other routes that a student had misrepresented information on the FAFSA and had had a drug conviction, such a student would most likely face sanctions and possible revocation of financial aid.
And were a student convicted of a drug-related offense, he or she would most likely face additional disciplinary measures from the College. "A student in such a situation would probably have been suspended from the College," Hazen said.
For example, possession of "harder" drugs such as cocaine or heroin, or distribution of even marijuana would result in the likely suspension of the student, according to the 2000-2001 Student Handbook.
"In short, I would say the law has had little impact on financial aid for Dartmouth students," Hazen concluded.
For according to surveys conducted by the College's Office of Evaluation and Research, although 43 percent of students have reported marijuana use, other drug use remains relatively low.
Only 2.7 percent of students have used cocaine, for example, compared to a national use rate of 4.6 percent.
Thus, the College has not developed any sort of policy as to whether or not a student, in addition to being denied federal aid, would also be granted no institutional aid. "If and when we are faced with such a situation, we will decide what to do at that time based on the merit of the case," Hazen said.
But despite the lack of impact the new provision has had on students, many have joined in the clamor of national protest over what many deem a misguided and discriminatory provision.
Just this winter, several students founded a Dartmouth chapter of Students for Sensible Drug Policy (SSDP), a national organization opposed to not these recent changes in federal financial aid distribution but a wide range of drug-related laws and policies.
According to Dartmouth SSDP's Vice President of Publicity Christopher Smith '03, the provision discriminates on the basis of class and race, and furthermore does not even accomplish its aim of reducing student drug use.
"Many at Dartmouth use drugs. If this provision were to do what it was designed to do, those people would not be here right now," Smith explained.
In denying financial aid to those convicted of drug offenses, the act affects only those who can't afford to pay for college, and not those whose parents foot the bill, Smith said.
"A poor family in the inner-city is really affected by it," he explained, and the implications of this law could lead to even greater class disparity, with only the wealthy among drug users able to go to college.
SSDP President Aaron Craelis '02 agreed that the provision will disproportionately affect lower-class and working-class students, as well as racial minorities.
"The majority of drug convictions are given to minorities," Craelis said, even though African-Americans and other minority groups do not have an overall higher rate of drug use.
Thus the government is "not making steps toward" the goal of "equal opportunity for all peoples," Craelis said.
Furthermore, the provision is "denying people a pathway to get away from criminal activity." A student with a drug conviction but no money to pay for college is now cut off from many opportunities to make a productive living, he explained.
Worse yet, those with convictions who still want to attend college might turn to drug-dealing to finance tuition, Craelis said.
The provision also raises issues of personal freedom and civil liberties, with many feeling the provision deals with "something the government really shouldn't have anything to do with," Craelis said.
Furthermore, the law does nothing to make what Smith sees as an important distinction between drug use and drug abuse.
Although admitting that "ideally there would be no drugs," according to Smith "people can use drugs in a manner that doesn't affect them negatively," in a manner that would allow them to continue their education unfettered.
The new SSDP chapter hopes to bring its message to more Dartmouth students and spur discussion on these very important issues, Smith said.
Already this term the organization has hosted a discussion at Alpha Delta fraternity entitled "The War on Drugs Takes its Toll on Education," and organizers hope to drum up a broader base of support on campus and join other national organizations in protesting the provision.
"People here are really isolated when it comes to the drug war. Some have experienced it, but very few," Smith said.
"We're not just a bunch of potheads. We just want people to be educated about what's going on out there," he added.
