TYING STUDENT AID TO DRUG LAWS PUNISHES KIDS TWICE

Thanks go to the Students for Sensible Drug Policy for compiling
statistics about the number of college students affected by a 1998
law that suspends federal financial aid for students convicted of
drug offenses. The numbers don't so much provide convincing evidence
of the law's stupidity - that was clear from the start - but rather
of the toll that it is taking.

According to the information released by the student organization,
more than 200,000 students have been denied federal grants, loans and
work-study aid in the last six years because of the law. Included in
that total are more than 500 New Hampshire and 200 Vermont students.

The law mandates a one-year loss of federal financial aid for any student
convicted of a first drug offense, two years for a second offense and
indefinitely for more offenses. Congress passed the law after trying
a different approach: A 1988 measure gave federal and state judges the
discretion to suspend college students' eligibility for federal financial
aid if convicted of drug offenses. Judges apparently have better judgment
than those serving in the Capitol: Between 1990 and 2004, judges exercised
this option in less than 0.2 percent of the cases. Presumably,
those judges assumed that decisions about who should and shouldn't be
allowed to attend college were best left to the educational institutions.

Congress has recently improved the law by limiting its application
only to those who are convicted of offenses while in college and
already receiving aid; under the original law, applicants for federal
aid were punished for prior violations. While the change makes the
law slightly less punitive, it doesn't eliminate its fundamental
flaws. Chief among them is the law's illogical focus on drug
offenses. Why should Congress withdraw financial support for students
who have violated drug laws while doing nothing about those who have
been convicted of other, perhaps more serious, crimes? The obvious
answer is that the war on drugs has tempted members of Congress to
score cheap political points.

While it's true that those students who face this punishment have
only themselves to blame, it's also the case that the punishment
falls much more harshly on those who are most dependent on financial
aid - the poor. Federal financial aid is distributed solely on a
need basis. Students from families with means either don't qualify
for federal help or won't be hurt as much by its cancellation. And
that's if they even suffer the indignity of being convicted. Students
from families with resources often can afford to hire lawyers who
might help them minimize the legal fallout from misbehavior.

The law is also likely to disproportionately affect minorities.
According to the Justice Department, African-Americans account for 12
percent of the country's population, 13 percent of its drug users but
62 percent of those convicted of drug offenses.

And heretical as this might be in this era, it also needs to be
pointed out that this law, because it goes after first-time
offenders, gives young people no leeway to do what young people are
prone to do - make mistakes.

Students for Sensible Drug Laws has joined with the American Civil
Liberties Union to challenge the constitutionality of the law. They
seek to have the law thrown out on the grounds that it constitutes
double punishment and unfairly singles out drug-users among
criminals to be subject to these sanctions. Congress could spare
everyone the trouble by realizing that it defies logic to make it all
but impossible for young and poor people who have made mistakes to
take the traditional path of self-improvement - by pursuing a good
education.