DRUG QUESTION ON AID APPLICATION UNDER FIRE AGAIN

When students apply for federal financial aid, they are asked whether they
have ever been convicted of possessing or selling illegal drugs. A bill
reintroduced in the House of Representatives last month could make that
question disappear.

An amendment added to the Higher Education Act in 1998 dictated that
applicants who had been convicted of selling or possessing illegal drugs
would be denied federal aid. These applicants are ineligible for aid for as
little as one or two years or indefinitely, depending on the type and
frequency of the offense.

Rep. Mark Souder, an Indiana Republican, helped add the provision because
he "wanted to discourage college students from using drugs," according to
Seth Becker, his press secretary.

Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., introduced a bill that would completely repeal
this amendment. It had 46 co-sponsors last week, according to Frank
spokesman Joe Racalto.

He has introduced two similar bills in the past, but these have not gone
through.

Frank wants to "completely take that provision right out," Racalto said. He
said the proposal would make it as if the provision had never existed --
applicants would be eligible for federal student aid regardless of past
drug convictions.

"We're certainly not advocating this for major drug traffickers, [but] it's
mostly simple possession that kids get busted for," Racalto said.

Whether applicants are eligible for assistance is determined by the Free
Application for Federal Student Aid, a first step for many students who
want federal money for college. A question on the form asks whether the
applicant has "ever been convicted of possessing or selling illegal drugs."

If the answer is yes, the applicant is sent a worksheet that determines
whether the conviction affects one's eligibility for aid.

The Coalition for Higher Education Act Reform, which supports Frank,
estimates that about 100,000 students have been denied aid since the
provision went through. It bases this figure on the number of applicants
who have been formally turned down, as well as students who have left the
question blank and not had their forms processed.

Becker said that the way the law is enforced now, students are rejected for
aid if they have drug offenses anywhere on their records, which is "never
what anyone intended." The provision was only meant to punish those who
were convicted while they were in college, but not before, he said.

Supporters agree that the law is being enforced more tightly than before.
"The Clinton administration just kind of winked their eye at it," Racalto said.

The Coalition refers to the drug question as "the number one obstacle to
students seeking education after high school," according to a press
release. Coalition coordinator Ben Gaines said that the law targets low-
and middle-income students because they need federal aid to go to college.

"For students who come from families who qualify" for aid, Gaines said,
"it's not even the largest barrier, but the only barrier."

It makes no sense that applicants convicted of rape and murder are still
eligible for aid while convicted drug offenders are not, Racalto said.

Becker called federal aid money "essentially a scholarship from the
government" and compared it to an athletic scholarship. He said that
students granted aid disqualify themselves if they are convicted of drug
offenses, just like a student who refused to play basketball would be
disqualified for a basketball scholarship.

"This aid is a privilege, not a right," he said.

Becker discounted statements that the drug provision doubly punishes
applicants after they have been convicted. "This is not additional legal
punishment," he said.

Opponents of the amendment also say that it unfairly targets blacks and
Hispanics because they are most likely to be convicted of drug offenses.
Sophomore Aaron Biterman, president of AU's chapter of Students for
Sensible Drug Policy, has previously cited Justice Department statistics in
support of this statement.

"African Americans make up 13 percent of the U.S. population and an
estimated 13 percent of drug users, but represent 55 percent of drug
convictions and more than 70 percent of incarcerations for drug-related
offenses," Biterman wrote in a piece on the Web site Aggressive-Voice.

Becker said that although "it's hard to tell," it is unlikely that Frank's
bill will be passed, citing bipartisan opposition. "Most Americans want to
discourage drug use," he said.

Gaines said that the bill may not pass on its own, but the same result may
come when the Higher Education Act is reauthorized by Congress this year.
Amendments have been regularly added to the Act since it was first passed
in 1965.

According to a press release, the Coalition for Higher Education Act Reform
has garnered the support of several organizations, including lobbying
groups that represent teachers and financial aid administrators. Its Web
site lists many universities whose student governments have endorsed a
repeal of the drug provision.

AU is among these universities. Biterman said that another student group
passed an SC resolution against the 1998 amendment.

That group, a chapter of the National Organization for the Reform of
Marijuana Laws, folded in 1999, Biterman said. He said that his group,
SSDP, can't lobby for or against Frank's bill because to do so is against
University policy.

Still, Biterman called the drug provision "pompous" and "ridiculous."

"Punishing people for non-violent activity is counter-productive," he said.
"It criminalizes an activity that should be treated as a health issue, not
a crime issue."