WEDDING DRUG CONVICTIONS AND AID

As reported in The Daily Iowan on March 22, Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., has
introduced the Removing Impediments to Students, Education Act in the U.S.
House of Representatives. This bill, if passed, would remove a provision of
the Higher Education Act stipulating that students with minor drug-related
convictions cannot receive financial aid from the federal government. While
we agree with the premise animating this specific provision - in theory,
the policy purports to reduce drug use and experimentation among college
students - we support Frank's attempt to quash it for a number of reasons.

First, the Higher Education Act bans federal aid to students convicted of
drug offenses, but it does not make qualifications for students convicted
of any other crime, including those much more serious than a charge such as
simple marijuana possession. This incongruity is so nonsensical that it
edges into the realm of satire: Isn't it a greater detriment to other
students and faculty to be in the presence of a federally aided bank robber
than someone who decided to smoke a joint?

If being caught with a bag of weed justifies stripping a student's
financial aid, then surely a conviction for drunken driving - to say
nothing of other potentially violent offenses such as battery or assault -
should merit the same punishment. One incident of poor judgment at a young,
impressionable age, particularly a mistake that is not terribly uncommon,
should not serve as an insurmountable barrier to obtaining an education.

A provision that punishes an immature high-school senior but not a rapist
is one that sends the wrong message, to say the least.

Moreover, no mechanism exists for enforcing this policy.

Students are simply asked a "yes-no" question about their drug-related
conviction history on the Free Application for Federal Student Aid. Cathy
Wilcox, the university's associate director of Student Financial Aid,
candidly pointed out that there is no investigative procedure by which the
government can check to see if students are honest in their answers.

On top of that, if students answer "yes" to the question, the applications
are returned and the students are given the chance to change the answer.

Thus, even if financial-aid applicants are truthful about their criminal
histories - which cannot be verified effectively - they are given a second
chance to lie if they so choose.

Finally, in accordance with criticisms leveled by members of UI Students
for Sensible Drug Policy, the provision as it stands has a higher
probability of penalizing minorities, who are statistically more likely to
be convicted of a drug-related crime.

Particularly with problems already surrounding inequality of education in
this country, it's another valueless restriction that we don't need.

Sensible efforts to encourage prospective students to take their future
college careers more seriously should be supported.

But a policy that is so narrowly focused and illogical without any
mechanism for its enforcement is hardly an example of that.