Education is supposed to be an investment in the future. Many students are forced to finance their education through loans that will follow them into the "adult" world. In an effort to make investing in education possible for more students and ease the financial burden of loans for them, Congress passed a bill this week that will lower the interest rate on student loans. This will drop the student loan interest rate to a 17-year low of 7.43 percent. The bill also increased the amount of money for Pell grants, although many students will not be able to benefit from these funds.
The interest rate - which dropped from 8.23 percent - will not only help those students taking out new loans, but students and former students who wish to consolidate loans. University students should consolidate their loans before the window of opportunity close at the end of January.
Congress did face opposition in lowering interest rates from banks who claimed that the new rates could financially hinder them and drive them from the student loan business. Although it is doubtful that the interest rate would break the banks, Congress is providing the lenders with subsides that are expected to total hundreds of millions of dollars.
It is not only students that use loans that are benefiting from this bill, though. Those students who will be awarded a Pell grant in the future will also be able to reap the benefits of the bill. The current grant of $2,800 will be raised to $4,500 in the 1999-2000 academic year and will continue to increase until 2003, when the maximum grant size will top out at $5,800. But students not eligible for a Pell grant will not benefit from the increase in grant money because the number of grants will not increase - just their individual value.
But for many University students, the financial outlook is still grim. The lower interest rates will help students who are forced to take out loans and the increase in Pell grant money will help students who will qualify for the grant. But Congress did not provide enough money to increase the number of grants available. Many students are forced to take out loans that will financially burden them for years after graduation. Lower interest rates are a step in the right direction, but they are not enough to substantially ease the burden on many students.
Financial institutions are not making University students' situation easier. That the commercial banks are interested in student loans for profit made from interest. To prevent these banks from bailing on the student loan industry, Congress was forced to subsidize the institutions. The money that was used in the additional subsidy should instead be used to form additional grants.
By lowering the interest rate and increasing the amount of money offered in grants, Congress is definitely heading in the right direction. The increase in the value of Pell grants is good for students who are eligible, but for the many students who are not the solution to the problem of paying for college is still the same - loans. And for those students the option to consolidate or take out loans at a fixed lower interest rate is helpful but loans will still financially burden students for much of their adult life. Financial institutions should not be so greedy as to require subsidies from Congress. Congress and the private banks should put the interests of educating students above the profit margins of commercial corporations.
As of this past Sunday, non-union state employees could lose their jobs for having one beer over lunch. At the request of Gov. John Engler, Michigan has joined the ranks of 25 other states with the adoption of its new "zero-tolerance" policy toward drugs and alcohol. The policy mandates that any non-union worker found to have a blood alcohol concentration of 0.02 percent will be subject to disciplinary action that could include termination. Additionally, any state employee under the policy's umbrella will be fired if they are found with any detectable illegal drugs.
While the principle of taking measures to create a drug-free workplace is commendable, the new policy, which affects 16,000 state workers, considerably oversteps the boundary between the rational and the absurd. The Engler administration has maintained that the policy is fair because it gives state employees two times in their career to self-report any substance abuse problems before they are caught. How can such a policy be justified when a state worker can be fired for having a blood alcohol concentration of just one fifth of the state's drunken driving limit of 0.1 percent? Certainly, drunkenness and drug abuse on the job should not be tolerated. But the consumption of the equivalent of one alcoholic beverage would hardly impair the average adult to anywhere near the point where they could not properly perform a job, let alone to the point where it would warrant termination.
The blood alcohol concentration limits the new policy imposes are not its only flaw. Supposing that only workers who had genuine substance abuse problems were fired, the state would still be neglecting the responsibility it has to address employees' health issues. Rather than pulling the rug out from under the feet of people suffering from drug addictions, the state government should be setting an example for employers in the private sector by addressing employee chemical dependency through counseling, Alcoholics Anonymous or a similar treatment regimen. This approach would benefit both the state and the troubled worker. Fired employees, unable to afford effective treatment for themselves, will only see their problems get worse until they end up becoming even more of a burden on the state than they originally were as drug-plagued state employees.
Through the adoption of the "zero tolerance" policy, Michigan has forced itself to draw unfair and unnecessary distinctions between its employees. Another drug-testing policy has been languishing in court for two years, and the state is in the midst of negotiations with unions to establish a policy for all of its 58,000 employees. Instead of implementing an even-handed policy that applies to all of its employees, the state has singled out those workers not protected by the aegis of a union.
The state should be applauded for wanting to create a positive work environment for its employees, but the logic behind the new zero-tolerance policy is unsound. Not only is a 0.02 percent blood-alcohol concentration a ridiculous standard by which to define drunkenness, but the state dodges the obligation it has to maintain the health of its employees and ultimately puts more of a burden on itself by firing workers with chemical dependencies. Furthermore, if Michigan is to adopt an anti-drug policy, it must apply it universally, not just to workers who aren't backed-up by a union. There are better ways to discourage drug and alcohol abuse than through the implementation of intrusive, selective and irrational policies.
10-02-98
| Previous Article |
should be sent to: daily.letters@umich.edu | should be sent to: online.daily@umich.edu |