STUDENT AID BAN DESERVES REPEAL

The Bush administration has decided to enforce the law denying federal
aid to college students convicted of a drug offense. It's a bad
decision on several counts. The law is a feel-good gesture that was
flawed from the start. Even the man who wrote and sponsored the
original bill, Rep. Mark Souder of Indiana, wants it changed. He said
he never intended the law to apply to aid applicants with prior
convictions, only those convicted while receiving aid.

The retroactive feature is not the only problem. The law fails to
consider that state drug laws and how they are enforced can vary
dramatically. Moreover, there's a lack of equivalency. Other criminal
offenses, however serious, don't count. A convicted murderer remains
eligible for aid but not a teen-ager caught with a small amount of
pot.

Another criticism is that the law encourages lying or, more
accurately, evasion. Aid applications for the 2000-01 school year
included a question about drug convictions. Nearly a million
applicants skipped the question, causing a monumental backlog in
processing. Clinton administration officials opted to overlook the
omissions. Only those admitting to an offense -- a mere 8,000 -- were
denied aid.

The Bush administration warns applicants for the 2001-02 term that
answering the question is mandatory. So far, compliance is up. As of
April 1, about 279,000 out of 3.9 million applicants left the question
blank. Bush officials say random audits will be used to verify
answers. How much of that will be done is itself questionable.

The law has few supporters on or off campus. There is widespread
feeling that it is impossible to police, grossly unfair in some
instances and has little or no influence on student use of drugs. A
bill to repeal the law was introduced in the last session of Congress
but got nowhere. It won't this session either. Like so many students,
members prefer to evade the truth rather than appear soft on drugs.