Overview
Title
To establish that an individual who is convicted of any offense under any Federal or State law related to the individual’s conduct at and during the course of a protest that occurs at an institution of higher education shall be ineligible to receive a Federal student loan or for forgiveness, cancellation, waiver, or modification of certain Federal student loans.
ELI5 AI
S. 937 is a bill that says if someone gets in trouble with the law for doing something bad during a protest at a college, they won't be able to get help paying for school with federal student loans. This is to stop people from breaking rules during protests.
Summary AI
S. 937 proposes that individuals who are convicted of any law violations related to their behavior during protests at colleges or universities will lose eligibility to receive federal student loans. Additionally, these individuals will not qualify for any forgiveness, cancellation, waiver, or modification of federal student loans. The bill includes loans made under the Higher Education Act of 1965 and the Health Education Assistance Loan Program. This measure aims to discourage unlawful actions during protests by limiting access to federal education funding for offenders.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
Summary of the Bill
The proposed legislation, titled the "No Student Loans for Campus Criminals Act," aims to prohibit individuals who are convicted of offenses related to protests at institutions of higher education from receiving federal student loans or benefiting from certain loan forgiveness, cancellation, waiver, or modification programs. This restriction applies to loans made under various parts of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as well as loans from the Health Education Assistance Loan Program. In essence, the bill sets forth that anyone convicted of protest-related offenses at colleges or universities would face significant limitations in accessing financial aid or having their student loan debt alleviated.
Significant Issues
A primary concern with the bill is that it may be overly broad, potentially suppressing free speech and the right to protest. The bill does not clearly define what constitutes a protest or conduct that would result in these penalties, leading to ambiguities that could create legal challenges and inconsistent enforcement.
Fairness is another significant issue, as individuals who engage in protest-related activities would face penalties that are arguably more severe than those involving other offenses. This approach might not only seem disproportionate but could also strike many as unethical.
Further complicating matters is the potential for unequal treatment due to differences between state laws. As the prohibitions are based on convictions, which can significantly vary between jurisdictions, the application of the law could be inconsistent nationally.
Another complication arises from the retroactive inclusion of covered loans. Including loans issued before the enactment of the law could lead to administrative challenges and legal confusion regarding the retroactive application of these restrictions.
Broad Public Impact
The legislation could significantly alter how students approach activism on college campuses. Knowing that participation in protests could jeopardize financial aid might deter students from engaging in peaceful demonstrations. This might stifle important political and social discourse that often thrives in academic settings.
Moreover, the bill could potentially exacerbate inequalities in education access. Students from marginalized backgrounds, who may rely more heavily on federal financial aid, could feel particularly targeted or disproportionately affected by the legislation.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
For educational institutions, the bill could have mixed impacts. On one hand, it could reduce disruptions related to protests, allowing for a more controlled campus environment. On the other hand, it could contradict higher education’s role as a bastion for free expression and critical thought, potentially leading to backlash from both students and faculty who value these freedoms.
Students, particularly those engaged in activism, would face the most direct impact. For students who experience conviction for protest-related activities, the consequences could be life-altering, impeding their educational and professional advancement.
Lawmakers and policymakers would have to navigate the delicate balance between maintaining order and safeguarding rights. Failure to address the bill’s ambiguities and fairness concerns could lead to significant public criticism and legal challenges.
Overall, while the bill may aim to discourage unlawful conduct during protests, its broadly defined terms and retroactive provisions could lead to substantial unintended consequences that affect a wide swath of individuals and institutions.
Issues
The prohibition on receiving federal student loans and loan forgiveness for individuals involved in protests at institutions of higher education, as detailed in Section 2(a), could be considered overly broad and raise concerns about inhibiting free speech and protest rights. This could result in significant public and political backlash.
The terms 'protest' and 'conduct' are not clearly defined in Section 2(a)(3), leading to ambiguity about what specific actions could trigger the prohibitions. This lack of clarity could result in legal challenges and inconsistency in application.
There is a potential issue of fairness, as individuals convicted of offenses related to protests may face disproportionate penalties compared to other types of offenses, as outlined in Section 2(a)(1) and 2(a)(2). This could lead to significant ethical and public concerns.
The application of these provisions could lead to inconsistencies in how individuals are treated based on differences in state laws regarding protest-related offenses, which could raise concerns about equal treatment under the law, as indicated in Section 2(a)(3).
The definition of 'covered loan' in Section 2(b)(1) includes loans from acts enacted both before and after the bill's enactment, which might complicate administration and create legal confusion about retroactive application.
The prohibition is based entirely on convictions, which may vary significantly between jurisdictions, leading to unequal application of the law, as noted in Section 2(a)(3). This could result in legal challenges based on disparities in criminal justice outcomes.
Sections
Sections are presented as they are annotated in the original legislative text. Any missing headers, numbers, or non-consecutive order is due to the original text.
1. Short title Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The "No Student Loans for Campus Criminals Act" is the short title of this legislative bill.
2. Prohibitions on receipt of Federal student loans and loan forgiveness for certain individuals Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section prohibits individuals who are convicted of offenses during protests at colleges or universities from receiving federal student loans and loan forgiveness. It defines "covered loan" and clarifies which types of loans and educational institutions are included under these rules.