JUST CHECK NO? A LIE COLLEGE STUDENTS MIGHT WANT TO TELL

In 1998, Rep. Mark Souder, R-Ind., an advocate of stringent drug
laws, slipped into a House bill an amendment denying federal
financial aid for college to anyone who had been convicted of either
selling or possessing drugs. No congressional committee voted on the
amendment. But it passed as part of the reauthorization of the Higher
Education Act, first enacted in 1965 to create federal financial aid
for college students.

In 2004, the group Students for Sensible Drug Policy asked the
federal government to give it a state-by-state breakdown of the
number of students denied aid as a result of Souder's amendment. The
Department of Education demanded $4,124.19 for the information. SSDP
asked for a fee waiver, arguing that releasing the information was in
the public's interest and that the group is a cash-strapped
nonprofit. The agency denied SSDP's request, arguing that releasing
the data could lead to drug legalization. Public Citizen backed SSDP
in court. The New York Times editorialized on its behalf. The federal
government blinked. On Wednesday, the Department of Education gave
SSDP the state-by-state numbers. Here they are.
http://www.slate.com/id/2139803/sidebar/2139804/

If this law betters the lives of young people--Souder calls it a way
to reduce youth drug use by reducing demand--then no state has done
better than Souder's own Indiana. As of August 2005, nearly 9,000
Indianan students--one in 200--have been denied aid since the law
passed. That's the highest proportion of students affected in any
state by a wide margin. (Click here to see where your state ranks.
http://www.slate.com/id/2139803/sidebar/2139804/ ) A week ago, when
the Department of Education released preliminary data, I started
calling Martin Green, Souder's spokesman, for a comment on Indiana's
stellar showing. He has not returned my calls.

There's another funny thing about the Department of Education's
numbers: They don't show the number of college applicants punished
for drug convictions. They show the number punished for owning up to
drug convictions. On their financial-aid applications, students are
asked to check a box if they've been convicted of selling or
possessing drugs. But the department has no way to verify students'
answers. Officials can cross-check the answers with federal arrest
records, but they make up a very small percentage of all drug convictions.

So far, about 190,000 students across the country (and abroad) have
told the truth and been denied financial aid. It's impossible to know
how many lied and headed off to college, federal aid in hand. Nearly
300,000 student-aid applicants, however, simply ignored the question
in 2000-2001, the first school year in which it was asked. After
internal debate, the Clinton administration decided to give all these
students a pass. (A fitting verdict, perhaps, given Clinton's own
equivocal response to questions about drug use.)

The Bush administration reversed this "ask, but don't tell" policy.
Beginning in 2001, applicants who have refused to say whether they've
been convicted of a drug crime are presumed guilty and bounced from
the aid pool. That year, the number of students denied aid quintupled.

When Souder's amendment came up for reconsideration last year, its
opponents couldn't muster the votes to get rid of it. They settled
for a change that denies federal aid only to students caught getting
high while in college. That bill was signed by President Bush as part
of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005. But its future is hazy; it's
tied up in court because the House and Senate versions differed
slightly. Whatever its fate, the government still won't be able to
verify much about a student's drug record. Which means they'll catch
fibbing students only if they've had the unusual misfortune of being
convicted of a federal crime. A word to the wise, and the
not-so-wise: You may want to just check "no."