DRUGS AND COLLEGE AID: STUDENTS SHOULDN'T HAVE TO PAY TWICE

There was a good reason why the Clinton administration never
seriously enforced a 3-year-old law barring citizens recently
convicted of drug offenses from receiving federal financial aid for
college: It's a discriminatory and shortsighted policy. Now that the
Bush administration is taking a more vigorous approach to
enforcement, it's even more important to repeal the law. Approved by
Congress in 1998 without much notice, the law renders college aid
applicants ineligible if they've been convicted of any drug crime. A
single conviction for marijuana possession, for example, disqualifies
a student for a year from the date of conviction. Crimes involving
heavier drugs or selling drugs merit longer ineligibility. About
9,000 students last year lost aid as a result of drug convictions,
and stiffer enforcement could increase the number dramatically.

But the policy amounts to a heightened form of double jeopardy.
Students who've already paid the criminal penalties for drug
convictions -- through drug treatment, probation, community service
or time in jail -- are being made to pay again through the loss of
college aid. That prevents them from following a productive path that
may be the best insurance against recidivism. And the hammer falls
unequally on college students, putting up a barrier to higher
education for convicted students who are poor and need financial aid
that doesn't exist for convicted students who are better off.

Then there's this irony: While they demand answers about drug
offenses, federal college aid applications show no interest in other,
more serious forms of crime. A student can commit arson, burglary,
even murder, and still qualify for financial aid.

U.S. Rep. Mark Souder of Indiana, who sponsored the original law, now
wants to revise it, saying he never meant it to apply to college
applicants, only to students who are already in and receiving federal
aid. Rep. Barney Frank of Massachusetts has a better idea: Do away
with it altogether. His bill, HR 786, awaits action by the House and
deserves to pass.