LAW BARRING U.S. AID TO DRUG OFFENDERS CONCERNS ADMINISTRATORS AND ACTIVISTS

Critics Says Measure Will Be Hard To Enforce And Will Hurt Only Low-Income
Students

Under ordinary circumstances, university administrators seldom see eye to
eye with students lobbying to legalize drugs.

But at the University of Virginia, a new federal law that would strip
students convicted of drug-related offenses of their Pell Grants and other
forms of financial aid has both the aid director and the leader of a group
that wants to liberalize marijuana laws crying foul.

The aid restriction was part of the Higher Education Act legislation that
President Clinton signed in October. Championed by Rep. Mark E. Souder, an
Indiana Republican, the provision would deny federal aid to students who
have been convicted in state or federal court for possessing or selling drugs.

To Elizabeth Myers, a senior and president of the campus chapter of the
National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, the measure is
wrong-headed.

"This is not going to stop drug use on campus. But what it will do is
punish people who are caught with drugs who can't afford to go to college,"
Ms. Myers says. "So a rich kid who gets caught using pot does not get
punished at all, while a poor kid loses his college education -- and that's
just not fair."

To Yvonne B. Hubbard, the university's financial-aid director, the
provision -- right or wrong -- will be a nightmare to enforce. "I don't
know how this can be administered fairly and equitably," she says.

The concerns here at Virginia are being voiced by college administrators
and campus activists around the nation. Under the federal ban, students
would lose their aid eligibility for one year for a first conviction on a
drug-possession offense; two years for a second conviction; and
indefinitely for a third conviction. Students caught selling drugs would
lose eligibility for two years for a first conviction, and indefinitely for
a second. Students' eligibility could be restored before the designated
time period if the students satisfactorily completed a drug-rehabilitation
program, or if their convictions were reversed or set aside.

The U.S. Education Department has announced that the law will not become
effective until July 1, 2000. In the meantime, the department is working
with college groups to determine how best to carry it out. Colleges,
concerned about institutional liability, are arguing -- and the Education
Department appears to agree -- that it should be up to the federal
government, and not campuses, to examine students' offenses and determine
whether they should be disqualified from receiving aid.

Meanwhile, a national campaign has begun to try to galvanize student
opposition to the measure. The Drug Reform Coordination Network, a
nonprofit group based in Washington, is working with activists on 150
campuses to persuade the student-governing boards at those institutions to
endorse a bill, introduced last month by Rep. Barney Frank, a Massachusetts
Democrat, that would repeal the provision. The group has also set up a
World-Wide Web site, through which students can lobby lawmakers to support
Mr. Frank's bill.

Representative Souder, the author of the ban, does not understand what all
the fuss is about. He says his provision is based on a simple proposition:
Students who receive federal assistance to go to college should not be
using it to purchase drugs.

"The bottom line is this: Actions have consequences," Mr. Souder wrote in a
column that appeared in the University of Virginia's main student
newspaper, The Cavalier Daily, in February. "If you receive taxpayer
assistance to pursue your college education, you will be held accountable
for investing it wisely."

Adam J. Smith, the drug-reform network's associate director, has another
explanation for Mr. Souder's action. "One can only surmise that legislators
pass laws such as this to look tough to their constituents, while counting
on students to simply roll over and accept the fact that they are being
used as pawns," he says.

Mr. Smith argues that the law will not only discriminate against low-income
students, but also against black and Hispanic students, many of whom
receive student aid and who, he says, are disproportionately prosecuted for
drug offenses.

He cites statistics from a study conducted in 1995 by the Sentencing
Project, a non-profit organization, which found that black Americans, who
make up 12 per cent of the population and approximately 13 per cent of all
drug users, constitute 55 per cent of those convicted of drug offenses.

"This law will deny an education to those for whom it is most vital -- the
poor, the non-white, and non-violent young people who have had previous
contact with the criminal-justice system and who are trying to turn their
lives around," Mr. Smith says.

Mr. Souder denies those claims. In his column in The Cavalier Daily, he
accused the drug-reform network of using the race issue to agitate students
and draw them into its campaign to weaken the drug laws.

"Hiding behind the issue of race only serves the interest of the small
minority of people who would like to use drugs with impunity," Mr. Souder
wrote.

"In the past, these organizations have used the sick and dying as a front
to promote the use of so-called medicinal marijuana in their continual
effort to weaken drug laws," the Congressman wrote. "Now, they see an
opportunity to take advantage of college students who receive financial aid
by enlisting them in their doomed campaign."

But the drug-reform network's efforts are beginning to pay off.
Organizations such as the United States Student Association and the
N.A.A.C.P have endorsed the network's campaign. And the student governments
at at least seven public and private institutions -- Hampshire, Pitzer, and
Western State Colleges, Illinois State and Western Connecticut State
Universities, Rochester Institute of Technology, and the University of
Wisconsin at Richland -- have voted to back Mr. Frank's bill. The Student
Association of the State University of New York and the United Council of
University of Wisconsin Students have also voted to support overturning the
law.

Here at Virginia, Ms. Myers hopes to give the Student Council a petition by
the end of this week that has 500 student signatures backing Mr. Frank's bill.

Her biggest obstacle so far has been the large number of students here who
haven't heard of Mr. Souder or his measure. "I think a lot of university
students live in their own little bubbles," she says. "They don't know
what's going on in the outside world, even if there are things happening
there that can affect them."

Another potential roadblock is what Ms. Myers sees as the relative
conservatism of the student body here. For every student who opposes the
ban, it seems, one -- or maybe even two -- supports it.

Joseph Draper, a senior, believes it is counterproductive to make college
less affordable for poor students who have been convicted of drug offenses.

"Once the student aid is gone, then many low-income students can't go to
college. And who does that help?" he asks. "I believe education is more
effective than punishment in helping those with drug problems."

But Jason Giovannelli, a junior, agrees with Representative Souder's
provision. "If you get student aid," he says, "you probably shouldn't be
spending the money you don't have on drugs."

Ms. Hubbard, the university's aid director, would not render a judgment on
Mr. Souder's measure, saying her view didn't matter. Her job, she says, is
to enforce the ban.

And she is just not sure how she will be able to do that. Students come
from across the country to go to the university, making it difficult to
check their backgrounds. And there is no easy way for her to confirm
whether they have been arrested when they leave campus for Spring Break,
for example, or summer vacation. State and local laws vary greatly on the
penalties associated with different drug offenses, she says.

Many college lawyers have been especially worried that enforcement actions
taken by their aid administrators could leave institutions liable to
lawsuits. Lawyers worry that students might sue the institutions if the
administrators take away their aid or give them faulty advice that prevents
them from getting their aid back. They also worry that institutions could
be sued by private citizens or conservative watchdog groups, if they
suspect that the institutions have not aggressively carried out the law.

For those reasons, college groups want the Department of Education to let
students "self-certify" whether they have been convicted of drug offenses
during a period of time. Such an approach would force contractors working
for the Education Department -- and not campus-aid administrators -- to
determine students' eligibility for aid.

Representatives of college groups who are negotiating with the Education
Department over that provision are restricted from commenting on the
proceedings. They acknowledge, however, that the self-reporting solution is
not perfect, and that many students who have been convicted of drug charges
will lie to protect their aid. But they believe they have proposed the best
solution available.

Education Department officials agree, and are now considering whether to
ask students about their past drug offenses on the aid application or on a
different document sent to students after they have been initially approved
for aid. If the question is posed on the aid form, department officials and
aid experts fear, some low-income students may be scared off from applying
for aid altogether.

The university's Ms. Hubbard is not so happy with self-certification as a
solution. "It comes down to this: The kid who tells the truth will lose his
aid, and the kid who lies will get his aid," she says. "How fair is that?"

Congressional aides to Mr. Souder have their doubts, too, but they say it
is too early for the Congressman to intervene. "We left it flexible so that
the Education Department can implement it as easily as possible," said a
spokeswoman for Mr. Souder. "If our concerns grow, however, with the way it
is being enforced, we can always revisit the issue."