ONE MISTAKE SHOULD NOT BE FATAL TO A STUDENT'S FUTURE

WASHINGTON - In the hit 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 good description of a federal law that
denies financial aid for a year or more to students convicted of drug
crimes, no matter how minor the crime might have been. Think about it: 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 at a rock concert and you can kiss tuition help goodbye
for a year or more, depending on the severity of the offense. 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 told me in a telephone interview. "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 to 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 only intended to penalize students for drug
violations committed while they are 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 the Clinton administration's
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 applicants who simply left it
blank received aid.

Some 9,000 others were denied because they acknowledged having had drug
convictions. I guess that's what they get for being candid during a drug
war. 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?" After
consulting with legal counsel, Bush's Education Secretary Rod Paige has
decided to treat a blank answer to that question like a "yes," spokesmen say.

So, while Souder blames the Clinton administration for making his bill more
ruthless than he intended, the Bush administration has announced an even
tougher policy.

Pause now to consider another one of the drug war's ironies. Remember how
presidential candidate George W. Bush refused to tell reporters whether he
ever used illegal drugs? His refusal to answer the question did not stop
him from getting to the White House. It would have stopped him, under his
administration's new policy, from getting a student loan. By last week,
with almost half of the expected 10 million applications turned in, about
32,000 people answered "yes" to the drug question, according to an
Education Department spokesman. About half of 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. Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) has a better idea. He is
reintroducing a bill to repeal Souder's measure altogether. Unfortunately,
a similar try by Frank failed last year. It probably won't get much further
this year. Too many of Washington's politicians run like scared rabbits
from the possibility of looking soft on drugs, even when the result would
help some ex-offenders to earn a better life.