WAR ON DRUGS SHOULDN'T BE A WAR AIMED AT STUDENTS

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
3-year-old federal law that denies financial aid for a year or more to
students convicted of drug crimes, no matter how minor. 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.

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 says. "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 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 intended only 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 Bill Clinton's administrationfor its
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.

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?"
Bush Education Secretary Rod Paige has decided to treat a blank answer
to that question as a "yes," spokesmen say.

Remember how presidential candidate George W. Bush refused to tell
reporters whether he ever used illegal drugs? His refusal to answer
the question would have stopped him, under his administration's new
policy, from getting a student loan.

By last week, with almost half the expected 10 million applications
turned in, about 32,000 people answered "yes" to the drug question.
About half 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. Too many Washington
politicians run like scared rabbits from the possibility of looking
soft on drugs, even when the result would help some ex-offenders earn
a better life.