SOUDER'S BURNT OFFERINGS

While sex was the headlined hypocrisy behind U.S. Rep. Mark Souder's
resignation, the pietistic politician's sanctimony didn't stop there.

Most of them wouldn't know Souder from Torquemada, but more than
200,000 Americans have taken a hit to their college educations thanks
to his vigilance for virtue.

Souder is the Moses of legislation denying federal financial aid to
students convicted of a drug offense. No other crimes. Just drugs.
Say your prayers every day, call Mom every night, get busted for pot
and that big tuition bill is all on you.

"The federal government for the last 12 years has been saying 'We
will open the campus gates to murderers and rapists and people who
have defrauded the government out of student loans; but drug
offenders and drug offenders only get no financial aid.' It is
patently unfair and it's short-sighted."

So says Adam Wolf, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties
Union who filed suit in 2006 on behalf of three rebuffed applicants
for aid, including then-Muncie resident Alexis Schwab.

The three, who declined to be interviewed, sought relief as
representatives of the thousands who endured burdensome expense or
had to pass up college altogether because of the anti-drug provision
of the Higher Education Act. They claimed they were being punished
twice for the same offense. They lost, in U.S. District Court in
South Dakota and on appeal.

But the battle, Wolf submits, advanced the war. He credits the
litigation, and the sheer number of the law's sufferers, with
bringing pressure to lighten the hammer.

Souder led the charge to mandate denial of the aid after several
years during which the vast bulk of colleges declined to serve as
cops voluntarily. Succeeding years of consternation and complaint
brought a softening -- denial was restricted to students who had
their drug convictions while receiving federal aid rather than before
applying for it. That came in 2006, a month before the ACLU suit.

There's a push in the new Congress to go even farther in weakening,
or perhaps even repealing, the Souder sanction.

"If the stated goal is to reduce drug use, you don't do it by keeping
kids out of school," says Matthew Palevsky, executive director of
Students for Sensible Drug Policy. "People are more likely to use
drugs if they don't have a college education. The law is illogical.
And what's worse, it's a double standard. A murderer can get
financial aid, but smoke a joint and get caught, and you're out. It's
narrow-minded, it's demonization, it's counterproductive."

Not for Souder. When he launched his crusade a decade ago, his
spokesperson insisted the point was not to condemn sinners but rather
to clean up campus life. The correlation never was established, but
the "family values" bona fides were. The credentials undoubtedly
remain solid, as does Souder's future; unlike countless futures
sacrificed to his glory.