WAR ON DRUGS MISFIRES AGAINST STUDENTS

WASHINGTON -- In the hit drug movie "Traffic," the drug czar played
by Michael Douglas laments a shocking discovery: The war on drugs, he
says, "is a war on our nation's most precious resource - our
children."

At the time, I thought that line was a bit of an exaggeration, some
purple prose from a director trying too hard to make a point. Now I'm
beginning to wonder whether Douglas' line didn't go far enough.

"War on our children" sounds like a pretty good description of a
three-year-old federal law that denies financial aid for a year or
more to students convicted of drug crimes, no matter how minor the
crime might have been.

Think about it: You can have a record for rape, murder, burglary or
child molestation and it won't hurt your chances for a federal
student grant or loan. But get caught lighting up a joint during a
rock concert and you can kiss that tuition help goodbye for a year or
more, depending on the severity of the offense.

Rep. Mark Souder calls it "accountability." He's the Indiana
Republican who authored the anti-drug measure as a 1998 amendment to
the Higher Education Act.

"The concept is simple," he told me in a telephone interview. "If you
want taxpayer funds, accountability goes with it. Some states do it
with driver's licenses. The federal government does it with public
housing. I wanted to do it with student loans."

Unfortunately, what he also has done is to punish thousands of
applicants twice for what many would call a "youthful indiscretion,"
to use a phrase made popular by embarrassed politicians.

The law exempts drug offenders who subsequently enrolled in a
treatment program. But many applicants found that out too late, even
if they could have afforded the treatment.

Now Souder, like Dr. Frankenstein, is deeply troubled by the
unintended consequences of his idea. He only intended to penalize
students for drug violations committed while they were students, not
for their prior offenses.

"I am an evangelical Christian," he said. "I believe in forgiveness.
I don't want to punish someone for an offense they committed long ago
when they now are trying to improve their lives."

So how did this goof happen? Souder blames the Clinton
administration's interpretation of his wording, but you also could
blame his wording.

"My bill says aid will be denied to an individual 'student who has
been convicted' of any offense under federal or state law," he said.
"It says 'student,' not 'applicant.' Why the Clinton administration
decided to punish applicants is a mystery to me."

Maybe. But, ah, what a difference a few words make. "Has been
convicted" does not stipulate how far back the conviction is supposed
to be. Sounds to me like the administration believed the words it
read.

Wording also became a confusing problem in the administration's
student aid application forms. As a result, the Clinton
administration decided not to penalize those who failed to answer the
question. About 279,000 applications who left it blank received aid.

Some 9,000 others were denied because they acknowledged having had
drug convictions. I guess that's what they get for being candid
during a drug war.

The Clinton administration made the wording more explicit for the
2001-2002 school year. It reads, "Do not leave this question blank.
Have you ever been convicted of possessing or selling illegal drugs?"

After consulting with legal counsel, Bush's Education Secretary Rod
Paige has decided to treat a blank answer to that question like a
"yes," spokesmen say.

So, while Souder blames the Clinton administration for making his
bill more ruthless than he intended, the Bush administration has
announced an even tougher policy.

Pause now to consider another one of the drug war's ironies. Remember
how presidential candidate George W. Bush refused to tell reporters
whether he ever used illegal drugs? His refusal to answer the
question did not stop him from getting to the White House. It would
have stopped him, under his administration's new policy, from getting
a student loan.

By last week, with almost half of the expected 10 million
applications turned in, about 32,000 people answered "yes" to the
drug question, according to an Education Department spokesman. About
half of those applications have been approved after applicants filled
out an additional drug questionnaire, and most of the rest of the
cases are under review.

Souder now is pushing to scale back his legislation's reach so it
won't penalize students for prior convictions. Rep. Barney Frank,
D-Mass., has a better idea. He is reintroducing a bill to repeal
Souder's measure altogether.

Unfortunately, a similar try by Frank failed last year. It probably
won't get much farther this year. Too many of Washington's
politicians run like scared rabbits from the possibility of looking
soft on drugs, even when the result would help some ex-offenders to
earn a better life.