BAN ON LOANS IS UNFAIR

A ban on giving federal aid to college students with drug convictions
does nothing but deny financial help to thousands of students who are
likely to need it the most.

The ban, approved in 1998, bars federal grants, work-study money and
U.S.-backed and subsidized student loans to anyone convicted of
selling or possessing drugs. According to the bill's author, U.S.
Rep. Mark Souder, an Indiana Republican, the measure was intended to
apply only to college students already getting loans or grants when
convicted. But the U.S. Education Department has interpreted the law
to apply to any applicant with a history of selling or possessing
drugs, no matter how minor the offense.

As a result, more than 34,000 applicants will be denied loans and
grants in the coming school year, more than triple those turned away
in 2000-2001. Even Souder now says that enforcement of the ban has
gone too far.

At the least, we think, the ban should be limited to those students
convicted of a drug offense after receiving a federal loan or grant.
Better yet, lawmakers should support a bill recently introduced to
repeal this law altogether.

The ban is fundamentally unfair. It requires low- and middle-income
students, many of whom have no other means of attending college, to
undergo screening for drug offenses while those who can pay their own
way endure no scrutiny.

The ban also penalizes students with a potentially bright future
because of a mistakes they may have made when they were much younger.
While some applicants can become eligible for aid in one or two years
or if they undergo drug treatment, the law still is biased against
students who can't afford college themselves or whose parents can't
foot the bill.

This law focuses on drug use, but what about other "youthful
indiscretions" such as underage drinking? Were President Bush's twin
daughters any less guilty of breaking the law when they used fake IDs
to buy drinks in a bar than the first-time offender convicted of
possessing marijuana?

There is, in fact, no logical reason to screen only for drug
offenses. If you're going to weed out drug offenders, a reasonable
case also could be made for including those guilty of alcohol
offenses, not to mention speeding, vandalism, curfew violations,
shoplifting and scores of other examples of anti-social behavior.

But a better case can be made for doing away with the ban altogether.
We suspect that its primary function is to allow lawmakers to posture
to voters and claim they are doing something useful to prevent teen
drug abuse.

What they actually are doing is making it harder for young people who
weren't born with a silver spoon in their mouths to make something of
themselves. This law should be repealed.