THE WAR ON DRUGS HITS THE 'ORANGE BUBBLE'

Test yourself, 'Prince' readers: What's the one crime that causes a
student to automatically lose federal financial aid? It's not murder.
It's not sexual assault. It's not treason. It's drug possession or
distribution.While rapists remain eligible, someone who's found
guilty of an insignificant crime like smoking a joint unavoidably
loses his or her federal financial aid.

Under the Drug-Free Student Loan Act of 1998, a person who is
convicted of possessing or distributing narcotics while receiving
federal loans will have aid suspended for at least one year and
possibly for as long as a lifetime.

This law is hurtful and unnecessary. Under its provisions, more than
189,000 students have been denied federal aid, and many others have
been discouraged from even applying for it. With the costs of college
spiraling endlessly upward, the need for accessible grants and
low-interest loans has never been greater. Yet, the law
disproportionately affects those who need aid the most. Low-income
students increasingly rely on federal assistance in order to attend
college, but in many cases they lack the resources necessary to
successfully fight drug charges in court. Moreover, rehabilitation
programs that allow students to resume receiving aid are frequently
too costly for underprivileged students to afford.

Undergraduates who lose their financial aid are often forced to drop
out of college. Denying Americans the benefits of education is not
the best way to help them become productive citizens, and it is more
likely to make them burdens on the state. The Drug-Free Student Loan
Act needlessly impedes access to higher education and all of the
future benefits that it brings.

Proponents of this measure argue that it discourages college students
from using drugs. In spite of this claim, a study by the U.S.
Government Accountability Office found no evidence that the aid
elimination law actually help[s] to deter drug uses.Obviously,
extreme cases of drug abuse do exist, and the undergraduate Tony
Montanas of America have no right to receive federal loans. However,
trial judges have the discretion to withdraw federal aid on a
case-by-case basis, and university administrators can suspend or
expel students convicted of serious criminal offenses. The
broad-based nature of this law, which treats cocaine dealers and
occasional marijuana users as worthy of similar punishments, makes it
especially egregious. This law is not even necessary to prevent
slacking stoners from gaining free rides through college without
doing any work: all federal loans already have clauses that require
students to maintain certain minimum GPAs.

While we can't change the aid elimination law by ourselves,
University officials can take steps to counteract its deleterious
effects on current and future Princetonians. Harvard, Yale, and
Swarthmore have already put in place policies to reimburse students
who lose federal aid due to minor drug possession charges. I strongly
believe that Nassau Hall should follow suit. Even if President
Tilghman is unwilling to support this change, the USG should take
action. At Berkeley, the student government created a scholarship
specifically for those who lose federal aid after drug convictions.
USG President Rob Biederman '08 and the USG would be making a strong
and prominent stand against an unfair law if they enacted a similar
measure at Princeton.

If a college student faces drug charges, then the decision to rescind
financial aid should be done on a case-by-case basis by those who
have the most information -- namely the trial judge and the
university's administrators. Any law that applies a blanket ban on
aid to drug offenders -- while leaving murderers and rapists eligible
- -- is patently unjustified and ought to be opposed. I hope that
Nassau Hall has the nerve to do so.