Yale corrects the legislative mistakes of its presidential alumnus.
May 15, 2002 8:17 AM Subscribe
Yale corrects the legislative mistakes of its presidential alumnus. If the joint that you got caught smoking in high school bars you from Federal aid, they'll match it dollar for dollar.
...match, dollar for dollar, any amount of federal aid lost by a student under a controversial 1998 provision of the Higher Education Act...
Umm...wasn't this passd under Clinton's watch? I'm no Bush fan but this is misrepresentation [we can nail him on other, more viable issues if we need to].
posted by plemeljr at 8:47 AM on May 15, 2002
Umm...wasn't this passd under Clinton's watch? I'm no Bush fan but this is misrepresentation [we can nail him on other, more viable issues if we need to].
posted by plemeljr at 8:47 AM on May 15, 2002
...watch out, if you light that thing up man, you might have to go to "Yale"...
posted by jkaczor at 8:57 AM on May 15, 2002
posted by jkaczor at 8:57 AM on May 15, 2002
That's beautiful. Really, that an institution like Yale would stand up and---in effect---call malarkey on this stupid law makes my day. Thanks, magullo.
plemeljr, my understanding is that it was passed on Clinton's watch, but that it wasn't enforced until Bush. Used to be, you could just not answer the "did you get busted" question on the student aid application and get away with it. Not so any longer. A bit more info here and here.
posted by Sapphireblue at 8:59 AM on May 15, 2002
plemeljr, my understanding is that it was passed on Clinton's watch, but that it wasn't enforced until Bush. Used to be, you could just not answer the "did you get busted" question on the student aid application and get away with it. Not so any longer. A bit more info here and here.
posted by Sapphireblue at 8:59 AM on May 15, 2002
"...provided the student in question undergos drug rehabilitation at the same time."
So if I had a conviction in high school, and haven't touched any drugs since, I still get to go through rehab?
No thanks.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 9:16 AM on May 15, 2002
So if I had a conviction in high school, and haven't touched any drugs since, I still get to go through rehab?
No thanks.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 9:16 AM on May 15, 2002
Here is the deal: during the Clinton years, if you left the box "Have you ever been arrested in relation to controlled substances" (or whatever the text was) clear, that was the end of it. Now, you leave it clear, you don't get the aid. You say yes, you also don't get the aid. That policy change was introduce by the current government.
posted by magullo at 9:16 AM on May 15, 2002
posted by magullo at 9:16 AM on May 15, 2002
What bothers me about this is that it is two-faced. Bush and co. don't really care about reducing drug use. They are trying to cutback on education expenditures.
posted by plaino at 9:23 AM on May 15, 2002
posted by plaino at 9:23 AM on May 15, 2002
Yay Yale.
Anyone who has ever attended these hallowed halls knows that we're all a bunch of stoners already anyway, so the new kids will feel right at home.
Boola Boola, Boola Boola...
posted by evanizer at 9:41 AM on May 15, 2002
Anyone who has ever attended these hallowed halls knows that we're all a bunch of stoners already anyway, so the new kids will feel right at home.
Boola Boola, Boola Boola...
posted by evanizer at 9:41 AM on May 15, 2002
The offending passage is found in Part G, Sec. 483 (f) of the Higher Education Amendments of 1998, signed into law on 10/7/98. Yes, it was signed by Clinton.
Only repeat offenders are barred permanently. There's an ineligibility interval beginning upon conviction--conviction, not arrest--and lasting from 1 to 2 years. Undergoing rehab eliminates this interval. So you can skip the rehab if you're willing to wait a year or two.
I didn't see anything in the text about an effective date; unless I missed it, that means it was effective the day it was signed into law. I think the delay in enforcement has to do with academic years, and the college loan application process. This is such a big program that it seems reasonable that the new provisions couldn't be put into place until 2000. Hey, I'm a dedicated Clintonista, but I don't think we can blame this one (this one) on the Republicans.
posted by MrMoonPie at 9:45 AM on May 15, 2002
Only repeat offenders are barred permanently. There's an ineligibility interval beginning upon conviction--conviction, not arrest--and lasting from 1 to 2 years. Undergoing rehab eliminates this interval. So you can skip the rehab if you're willing to wait a year or two.
I didn't see anything in the text about an effective date; unless I missed it, that means it was effective the day it was signed into law. I think the delay in enforcement has to do with academic years, and the college loan application process. This is such a big program that it seems reasonable that the new provisions couldn't be put into place until 2000. Hey, I'm a dedicated Clintonista, but I don't think we can blame this one (this one) on the Republicans.
posted by MrMoonPie at 9:45 AM on May 15, 2002
Wait, what I mean is, we can't blame this one on a Republican President. The bill's sponsor was, indeed, a Republican, though the cosponsors were pretty evenly split.
posted by MrMoonPie at 10:15 AM on May 15, 2002
posted by MrMoonPie at 10:15 AM on May 15, 2002
My problems with this particular
1) It discriminates against poor and minority students. If you are black or hispanic, statistically you stand a much higher chance of getting arrested for a drug offense. If you are poor, you stand a much higher chance at getting convicted and possibly serving jail time. Those students wealthy enough to not need financial aid are not affected in any way by this law.
2) It skates very closely to double jeopardy by adding a second punishment outside of the original conviction.
3) If a young person around age 18-21 is getting involved with drugs, how does denying an education help get him/her out of that environment?
More disgusting drug war bullshit. It doesn't matter who was in office to vote/sign it into law -- hardly anyone in power has had the balls to question this garbage.
posted by Dirjy at 10:18 AM on May 15, 2002
1) It discriminates against poor and minority students. If you are black or hispanic, statistically you stand a much higher chance of getting arrested for a drug offense. If you are poor, you stand a much higher chance at getting convicted and possibly serving jail time. Those students wealthy enough to not need financial aid are not affected in any way by this law.
2) It skates very closely to double jeopardy by adding a second punishment outside of the original conviction.
3) If a young person around age 18-21 is getting involved with drugs, how does denying an education help get him/her out of that environment?
More disgusting drug war bullshit. It doesn't matter who was in office to vote/sign it into law -- hardly anyone in power has had the balls to question this garbage.
posted by Dirjy at 10:18 AM on May 15, 2002
Yale corrects the legislative mistakes of its presidential alumnus.
...
Umm...wasn't this passd under Clinton's watch? I'm no Bush fan but this is misrepresentation
Clinton holds a degree from Yale Law. So regardless of which president you choose to blame, you're blaming a Yale alumnus. If you really want someone to blame, blame Mark Souder (R, Indiana), the fucknut who was behind the original provision and who defends it vehemently to this day.
posted by mr_roboto at 11:14 AM on May 15, 2002
...
Umm...wasn't this passd under Clinton's watch? I'm no Bush fan but this is misrepresentation
Clinton holds a degree from Yale Law. So regardless of which president you choose to blame, you're blaming a Yale alumnus. If you really want someone to blame, blame Mark Souder (R, Indiana), the fucknut who was behind the original provision and who defends it vehemently to this day.
posted by mr_roboto at 11:14 AM on May 15, 2002
Clinton holds a degree from Yale Law
mr_roboto...you got me. I tried looking this up when I posted [just in case of this] but I got side tracked by the P-Funk Thread and never followed up. It is funny that in the end, the [political] world is that small.
posted by plemeljr at 12:00 PM on May 15, 2002
mr_roboto...you got me. I tried looking this up when I posted [just in case of this] but I got side tracked by the P-Funk Thread and never followed up. It is funny that in the end, the [political] world is that small.
posted by plemeljr at 12:00 PM on May 15, 2002
Good thing drunks, murderers and rapists can still get tuition money, eh? Wouldn't want druggies hanging out with other more responsible violent criminals and all. I think the original poster of the link was correct in stating that a Yale alumnus decided to enforce a law that a Religious right wing Republican got inserted into a larger bill that Clinton signed.
Remember that Clinton decided to NOT enforce that provision. Why? Because it was stupid even though the bill had needed legislation that Clinton approved of. If Clinton refused to sign every bill that some religious nut inserted something stupid into he would have not signed ANY bills. Don't blame the BIG DOG for what religious right wingers do!
posted by nofundy at 12:19 PM on May 15, 2002
Remember that Clinton decided to NOT enforce that provision. Why? Because it was stupid even though the bill had needed legislation that Clinton approved of. If Clinton refused to sign every bill that some religious nut inserted something stupid into he would have not signed ANY bills. Don't blame the BIG DOG for what religious right wingers do!
posted by nofundy at 12:19 PM on May 15, 2002
Salon has a cover story today on the law and Yale's action. Smoke a joint and your future is McDonald's.
posted by Sapphireblue at 11:01 AM on May 20, 2002
posted by Sapphireblue at 11:01 AM on May 20, 2002
« Older | Windows XP Pro for $40! Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by Irontom at 8:25 AM on May 15, 2002