PICTURE this: You're down on the Corner. You're really hungry, but you're totally broke. You're wondering what to do when all of a sudden you see Thomas Hall coming down the street. You know he's supposed to be a pretty nice guy, and even though you have never really met him, you go up to him and ask him to spot you some cash. He considers it for a second or so, and then gives you the money. You tell him about your dire financial situation, and out of the goodness of his heart he decides to get together with the rest of the Honor Committee and give you money every week for the rest of the year to buy your lunch. About a month into this arrangement, you are convicted of an honor offense. In response, not only does Thomas pull some strings and allow you to stay at the University, but he also continues to give you your weekly allowance. While this irrational behavior seems nothing short of absurd, it is exactly the type of policy that many have been clamoring for the government to adopt in regard to student financial aid.
In 1998, an amendment was added to the Higher Education Act stating that, should an individual receiving grants, work-study financing or subsidized student loans from our government be convicted of possession or distribution of narcotics, the government aid they receive will be withdrawn. As Yale University came forward earlier this year to join Swarthmore College and Hampshire College in instituting policies to compensate for these provisions, the question of the morality of this government act has risen again to direct prominence. Despite the fact that this policy is the result of what should be viewed as common sense reasoning, many oppose the act vehemently. This resistance is asinine. The way in which our society has begun to justify nearly every type of inappropriate behavior in the name of political correctness is absolutely ridiculous. In our vain attempts to be "fair," we have totally lost sight of a little something called personal responsibility.
|
Opponents of this amendment argue that it unfairly targets "poor and minority students [who] are most likely to have a drug conviction," and who also are most likely to be in need of financial aid in the first place (http://www.dogonvillage.com/wwwboard/messages/541.html). While it may be true that poorer students are, by virtue of their financial situation, more vulnerable to temptations of pursuing illegal and - many would argue immoral - means of gaining money than their more financially secure peers, this is by no means an excuse. The government is doing these students a huge service by giving them money for college. The least that they, as individuals, can do is have some respect for the laws instituted and upheld by the hand that is feeding them.
The Higher Education Act makes no mention of the withdrawal of funds from those who commit violent crime. That doesn't make the amendment illegitimate. How is it - adversaries of the provision ask - that one guilty of a crime like rape or attempted murder can continue to receive government aid, while someone merely found to be in possession of drugs is denied? This is a good question, and, moreover, one that does not have an equally good answer. However, this by no means wins the argument for the opposition. Just because there is no mention of punishment for aggravated assault does not mean that all of a sudden selling heroin should be declared OK. The logic behind this argument sounds like something that would come off the kindergarten playground, not out of Washington, D.C. The penalty for conviction on drug charges should not be taken away. Rather, a comparable, if not more severe punishment, should be instituted for perpetrators of violent crimes.
Many will say that taking away money for education is too harsh a penalty for what could in certain instances have been little more than a brief lapse of judgment. While there is merit to this claim, the harsh truth is that there are a million good causes out there, and only so much money. If the people awarded scholarship money and government loans are not responsible enough to refrain from using and selling drugs, then the fact is that the money can be put to better use, whether it be on other programs entirely, or on the education of more responsible individuals.
This may come as shocking news to opponents of the Higher Education Act amendment, but it's really not that hard to not sell drugs. So, unless any of the dissenters would like to step up and volunteer to put a former or current drug dealer through college at their own personal expense instead of that of the American taxpayers, it's time to quiet this ridiculous campaign. The amendment's opponents should recognize that not all deviant behavior needs to or should be justified by individuals looking for any alleged injustice to fend off.
(Laura Parcells is a Cavalier Daily associate editor. She can be reached at lparcells@cavalierdaily.com.)
Read More
EDITORIAL: Carla Williams deserves her seat at the table
By Editorial Board | 3 hours agoLooking beyond basketball and football reveals that Virginia Athletics is, in many ways, thriving.
UPADHYAYA: The Great and not-so-Good sides of U.Va.’s 2030 housing plan
By Apal Upadhyaya | 2 days agoInstead of improving the dire state of existing infrastructure, however, the University has shifted attention away from it and chosen to expand.
EDITORIAL: Support low-barrier shelters in Charlottesville
By Editorial Board | 3 days agoInvesting in low-barrier shelters now will pay off in increased stability for the homeless, which will undoubtedly improve the safety of shelters and the community writ large.
