THE DRUG WAR GOES TO COLLEGE

What kind of vindictive social agenda could lead to a law that denies
financial aid to a student convicted of smoking a joint but not one
convicted of rape, murder, arson or armed robbery?

America's drug war insanity claimed fresh victims last week. The casualties
were rightly front-page news -- a child and her mother murdered in the
skies of Peru in the name of protecting our children from drugs. Receiving
a lot less attention were the tens of thousands of young people wounded by
the Bush administration's decision to strictly enforce a law that denies
financial aid to college students convicted of possessing illegal drugs.

The result of a 1998 amendment to the Higher Education Act, the student
loan ban was only sporadically enforced by the Clinton administration. Last
year, some 300,000 students who skipped over a question about drug
convictions on their financial aid applications still received their loans,
while 9,114 students who answered "yes" were denied aid. Under Bush's new
standard, the lack of a response will be treated as equivalent to "yes." As
a result, it is expected that about 60,000 students will lose their loans,
Pell grants and work-study programs this year.

Like so many of our misguided drug war policies, this one clearly
discriminates against minorities and the poor. We already know how
African-Americans are unfairly targeted by the criminal justice system --
making up only 13 percent of the country's drug users but 55 percent of
those convicted of drug possession and 74 percent of those sent to jail on
possession charges. Do we really want to transfer this racist bias from our
courts to our colleges?

And why make poor kids pay for the same crime twice, while children of
privilege are allowed their "youthful indiscretions" without fear of losing
the chance for a college education?

Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., who in February introduced a bill to repeal the
law, stresses its unjust nature. "These low-income students," he told
me=82" are in effect being thrown out of school for doing what George W.
Bush and Al Gore have done. Now, people might not be enamored with either
Bush or Gore, but I don't think anybody would say that America was
disserviced by them completing their college education."

Frank's amendment has been endorsed by more than 80 student government
associations. In fact, this latest drug war offensive has had a galvanizing
effect on campuses across America. Students for Sensible Drug Policy, a
leading campus organizer against the drug provision, has received more than
200 requests to establish new chapters in the past month alone.

In addition, a number of schools are establishing scholarship funds for
students denied aid under the new guidelines. Among them is Hampshire
College in Massachusetts, where Gregory Prince Jr. became the first
university president to come out against the law. "Why would you want to
exclude people from the educational stream," asks Prince, "when trying to
keep them in the stream is the most important thing to do?"

Politicians from both parties who supported the punitive provision are
having a hard time answering this question. The extent to which they are
feeling the heat is evidenced by the verbal back flips now being performed
by the law's sponsor, Rep. Mark Souder, R-Ind. He claims that the
legislation was never intended to punish students with prior drug
convictions as it currently does.

But didn't he read his own handiwork? Nowhere in the bill does it state
that it applies only to convictions incurred while receiving federal aid.
In fact, the language couldn't be clearer: "A student who has been
convicted of any offense ... involving the possession or sale of a
controlled substance shall not be eligible to receive any grant, loan, or
work assistance." Maybe Souder needs to go back to school for a refresher
class in English composition.

Or economics. He has argued that one of the primary purposes of his
legislation is to "help those who abuse drugs receive treatment." But he
fails to mention how this treatment is going to be paid for -- his bill
doesn't giveth, it only taketh away.

There are currently 3 million people who are not able to get treatment. And
someone who is not able to pay for school is probably someone who is not
able to pay for rehab either. So add Logic 101 to Souder's courseload.

Here's his first take-home test: "Solve the following conundrum: What kind
of twisted reasoning or vindictive social agenda could lead to a law that
denies financial aid to a student convicted of smoking a joint but not one
convicted of rape, murder, arson or armed robbery? Explain."

And after you explain, repeal.