CASUALTIES OF THE WAR ON DRUGS

You can murder, maim and molest and still get federal financial aid for
college. But get caught smoking a joint, and you have to pay your own way;
if you can afford it, that is.

The Bush administration has stepped up efforts to enforce a relatively new
law that suspends financial aid to anyone convicted of any drug crime,
felony or misdemeanor, state or federal. Those convictions can range from
smoking marijuana to dealing hard narcotics.

That's right, you could be sitting next to a convicted pedophile in Psych
101 whose tuition is paid for from federal financial aid, but not next to
your best friend, who was caught by police taking Ecstasy at a dance club.

For this school year, an estimated 34,000 students and college applicants
across the country will be denied financial aid because of drug
convictions, nearly a threefold increase from last year, when less than
10,000 were denied aid, according to the U.S. Department of Education.

The suspensions have caused students across the country to organize in
opposition, and they have the support of the American Civil Liberties Union
(ACLU), the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, the
Criminal Justice Policy Foundation and the National Council for Higher
Education.

"This measure is denying one of the basic principles of empowerment in this
country: education. It is taking away that opportunity, and people do not
react favorably to that attitude towards the problem," says Jody
Widenhouse, who last fall helped organize the local chapter of Students for
Sensible Drug Policy at N.C. State University (NCSU).

The national student organization, based in Washington, D.C., has local
chapters on 148 universities and high schools.

"This issue in particular ... is forcing people to deal with the nonsense
politics of the drug war," Widenhouse says.

Since the 2000-01 academic year, students have been losing financial aid
eligibility by way of the "drug free student aid" provision of the Higher
Education Act.

The provision was put into practice during the last school year and denies
student loans, federally funded grants and scholarships, and work
assistance to drug offenders.

Students can regain the assistance after a minimum one-year suspension, but
only after completing a rehabilitation program that adheres to federal
guidelines as well as agreeing to submit to random drug testing.The Case of
Chris Spurry

Activists are citing one student in particular as a victim of the law.

Chris Spurry was convicted in June 1999 for possession of marijuana.

Seventeen months later, in December of 2000, Spurry had just finished his
first semester at Arkansas State University, where he was studying for a
bachelor's degree in biology and an associate's degree in elementary education.

Then he got a letter from the university. He was no longer eligible for
financial assistance and would have to pay $800 for tuition for the next
semester if he wanted to continue his studies.

"I couldn't believe it at first," Spurry says. "I paid for my offense. I
had to give up my (driver's) license, pay fines."

Spurry -- who is married with children -- dropped out before classes
resumed. "With three children, I can't afford to go to school without that
aid. I just can't do it."

Says NCSU activist Widenhouse: "This only shows people what the drug war is
doing: It is taking away opportunity and punishing people for their crimes
more than once."

A Question of Fairness

The "drug free student aid" measure is the brainchild of Congressman Mark
Souder, a Republican from Indiana. In 1994, Congressional Quarterly named
him one of the four most effective "conservative true believers" in Congress.

He is also one of the more passionate voices dealing with issues about
illegal drugs.

"Unless we all work together ... we are going to continue to lose many more
of our young people and adults to the scourge of illegal narcotics," Souder
said from the House floor in defense of the law.

In 1998, Souder mustered enough support from his colleagues to amend the
federal Higher Education Act to ban financial aid for students with drug
convictions. Two years later, the law took effect.

"Federally subsidized student aid is a privilege, not a right," Souder
wrote in an op-ed column last year in USA Today. "Is it unreasonable to
expect college students ... to refrain from using and selling drugs or risk
losing that aid?"

The Higher Education Act was established in 1965 as one of President Lyndon
Johnson's "Great Society" initiatives. It created federal programs such as
the Perkins and Plus Loans, Pell Grants and work-study programs.

The goal was to provide enough financial assistance to those unable to
afford college to have the financial resources necessary to attend school
and seek a degree.

It did not deny aid based on drug use; if it had, many of today's leaders
in politics, business and social reform never would have passed the test.

But times have changed, Souder and his supporters say. Recipients of
financial aid should be accountable for their actions and think twice about
using or dealing illegal drugs while receiving money from the federal
government. Killers, drunk drivers and rapists, however, apparently need
not think even once about their actions.

For this reason and others, critics are seeking to repeal Souder's singular
assault on drug use and raise various legitimate questions.

Is the law fair?

What does it mean for former drug users, for whom a college degree can be a
turning point? Why doesn't it address the particular circumstances of an
individual drug offense, such as separating dealers from occasional users?

Does it discriminate in larger numbers against low-income minorities?

"This measure raises all kinds of issues, not the least of which are
punitive and equal protection concerns," says Rachel King of the ACLU's
national headquarters in Washington, D.C. "The law is a bit arbitrary to
begin with."

Adds Zach Mazer, former Vice President of the NCSU chapter of Students for
Sensible Drug Policy: "It is really sort of an example of treating student
drug offenders as a second class group of citizens, maybe even lower than
that."

You Must Answer Question 35

The law has very specific guidelines: first convictions of possession carry
a one-year suspension of federal aid; second convictions carry a two-year
suspension; and third convictions result in a permanent suspension of aid.

Penalties for dealing are twice as tough: A first offense results in
suspension for two years, and a second offense eliminates any chance of
financial aid.

Strict guidelines are placed on regaining eligibility.

Offenders have to complete a federally approved drug treatment program and
submit to two announced drug tests once they complete the program. The law
doesn't take into consideration that treatment is expensive and
availability is limited; nearly one-half of the people seeking treatment
either can't afford it or can't find an opening, according to the national
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration.

King has firsthand experience with the difficulties of treatment.

"When I was a public defender, I had clients who had to wait months to get
on a list for drug treatment," she says. "For lower income folks, there is
not treatment widely available."

"We cannot pretend this is a race-neutral policy," says Corye Barbour,
legislative director of the United States Student Association.
"African-Americans make up 12 percent of the population but 38 percent of
those arrested for and 58 percent of those convicted of drug offenses."

When Bill Clinton was President, students were able to avoid the issue
altogether. The question on their financial aid applications asked whether
the student had "never been convicted of any illegal drug offense." Many
considered the wording of the question confusing, and around 279,000
applicants left the question blank.

The Clinton Administration simply opted not to enforce the provision and
let the blanks count as "no." But to those who checked "yes" on the form,
9,114 lost their aid.

But the Bush Administration recently announced it would begin to enforce
the law. The recently revamped financial aid applications now have a bold
flag: DO NOT LEAVE QUESTION 35 BLANK.

Of course there is one way to beat the system.

Lie.

Very few applications are checked at the federal level and financial aid
administrators at individual colleges and universities often don't have the
resources to conduct criminal background checks.

Most local administrators simply don't have the time to "play judiciary,"
says Julie Rice-Mallette, director of Financial Aid at NCSU.

Can the Ban Survive?

Earlier this year, Congressman Barney Frank, a Democrat from Massachusetts,
introduced a resolution that would repeal the ban on federal financial aid
to students with drug convictions.

Frank says his resolution seeks to restore equity to the system. Judges
handling individual drug cases already had the power to suspend financial
aid to drug offenders before the federal ban took effect. Frank says he
wants that discretion returned to judges without broad-based bans from the
federal government.

"The authorities previously had the discretion to bar aid to people based
on the severity of their crimes and whether they are taking steps to
rehabilitate themselves. My bill would simply restore that discretion,"
Frank says.

"This would allow some people, who may have had difficulties with drugs but
are now taking steps to improve their lives by pursuing a higher education,
to continue to be eligible for aid."

As of last month, Frank's proposal had attracted 52 co-sponsors, including
Rep. Mel Watt, a North Carolina Democrat from Charlotte.

But the reform legislation has been stuck in committee since April.

With the new Bush Administration comes new challenges.

For drug reformers, the task has been getting tougher, not only with the
new enforcement measures for financial aid, but the general attitude toward
drugs overall.

Attorney General John Ashcroft is a dedicated drug warrior. Bush's nominee
for "Drug Czar" is John Walters, a graduate of the conservative Heritage
Foundation.

Walters is known as an extremist, even in drug war circles. He quit a
Clinton Administration post, in protest over increased spending for treatment.

What it adds up to is this.

For those like Chris Spurry, the ordeal is frustrating and contradicts the
goal of using education as a means of self-improvement and societal
advancement.

"Education has always been a tool of empowerment and self-improvement,"
Spurry says. "Until this measure is repealed, people are being denied those
opportunities."