HARVARD APATHETIC AS THE DRUG WAR WAGES ON

The drug provision of the Higher Education Act (HEA) has denied
federal financial aid to those convicted of the possession or sale of
controlled substances since 1998. Two thirds of undergraduates
receive some form of aid from the University, sometimes including
federal funds. However, there has not been a movement on campus to
repeal the amendment of the HEA, despite the fact that it is up for
reevaluation in Congress for the first time in seven years.

The Undergraduate Council did not follow 160 other student
governments last March, including those of Yale, Columbia, and Brown
Universities, by adopting a resolution calling for an end to the aid
ban. In the absence of action by the UC, Harvard has no advocacy
organization that deals with drug legalization. Larsen Santos '06,
chair of development for Drug Policy and Legalization - a Harvard
group that exists only on facebook com - said he could not give
suggestions for actions students might take to combat the provision.

"It's too bad we're not an active group. If we were, we might have an
answer to that question," said Santos. "We don't have an organized
drug-policy group at all. I think Harvard should definitely do
something because of course [this] does have an effect on Harvard students."

The Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) determines
eligibility for government funds: students receiving aid from Harvard
may not qualify for Pell Grants or additional programs such as Work
Study, Perkins Loans, and Supplemental Educational Opportunity
Grants. Considering also that federal or state convictions are likely
to affect one's chances both of admission to college and continued
attendance, it is unlikely that many Harvard undergraduates have been
denied monetary assistance because of the HEA.

Still, the law has had an enormous effect on the accessibility of
higher education outside Harvard's gates, where students are more
likely to come from disadvantaged backgrounds. The HEA is reevaluated
every five to seven years; the drug provision was added only in the
act's last evaluation, with the intent to discourage drug use. Since
then, 175,000 students with drug convictions have been denied financial aid.

Tom Angell, campaigns director of Students for Sensible Drug Policy,
believes that the 1998 amendment has actually encouraged substance
abuse in young adults. "Certainly we think that blocking access to
education is only going to cause more drug abuse in this country,"
said Angell. "This policy only affects students from low-to
middle-income families. Students who are better off can afford
tuition without public assistance and can afford a good lawyer to
avoid getting convicted in first place."

The US Government Accountability Office released a study in September
examining the effects of the provision. It found there is no evidence
the policy deters drug use. In March, Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA)
introduced the Removing Impediments to Students' Education Act, a
move to repeal the drug provision. It has yet to be voted into law.
Now, in light of the proven inefficiency of the financial-aid ban,
Angell urges students to take action. Anything less than a complete
repeal of the provision, he says, will be like "slapping a Band-Aid
on a gaping wound."

"Students at Harvard should certainly contact their legislators and
tell them they're tired of their education being held hostage to drug
politics," said Angell. "Contact Senator [Edward Kennedy (D-MA)]
because he is the number-one Democrat on the Senate Education Committee."

"Drug politics" has long dominated the national scene, and heated
debate over the legalization of marijuana continues. The
financial-aid ban is consistent with one of the government's main
strategies in the drug war - zero tolerance. The argument is that the
added funds and safety that drug regulation and taxation might bring
would encourage rampant and dangerous substance abuse.

More tolerance is needed, according to Santos. "The attitude is to
treat drug use as a criminal act. Instead of trying to educate and
rehabilitate we're making people into criminals," said Santos. "This
goes along with the general push to put people in prison. We're
punishing the kids for something they've already been punished for.
It seems like it's a policy that has no effect but to hurt kids who
might already have a lot of problems with their lives."

Ultimately, endless government acts and provisions are unlikely to
stop substance abuse on America's college campuses. Left ambiguous
are the conditions under which an undergraduate will be up for
conviction. Those found guilty of possessing or selling controlled
substances in high school cannot easily strike the offense from their
records; whether or not a student will be face charges at
universities is unclear.

Harvard's Handbook for Students warns, "Careful note should be taken
that the University is not, and cannot be considered as, a protector
or sanctuary from the existing laws of the city, state, or federal
government." Nevertheless, it says that first infractions may be met
with only a warning or counseling. No mention of law enforcement is
made. Students smoking pot in a common room may face little
punishment - or they may be setting fire to their academic futures.