DRUG EDUCATION

Student council members from seven Ivy League schools passed a resolution
this month urging Congress to reform the Drug Free Provision of the Higher
Education Act of 1998, which comes up for review next year.

The provision, which renders students ineligible for federal financial aid
if they are charged or convicted of drug use, currently hurts students more
than it helps them; it is more punitive than a deterrent.

Financial aid claims may be reviewed and rewards reinstated if students
successfully complete a drug rehabilitation program. However, students will
have little incentive to seek treatment if they must use that time to earn
lost college funding.

Since the provision was instituted four years ago, there is no evidence that
drug use is declining in general or specifically due to this provision. In
fact, statistics suggest drug use has been increasing; the Harvard School of
Public Health found that 15.7 percent of college students use marijuana, up
from 12.9 percent in 1993.

The most significant finding is that students are experimenting with drugs
at younger ages, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services reported.
In 2000 research showed that the average age of first-time drug use dropped
to 17.5 years old, and that twice as many students try drugs for the first
time between the ages of 12 and 17 than do so between the ages of 18 and 25.

Therefore, the provision in essence is punishing students who should not
necessarily be held to the same accountability as adults and who do not have
the same appreciation for the long-term consequences of their actions.

Students who are pursuing a higher degree should be encouraged to continue
to complete it. The provision hits the most disadvantaged students most
heavily; these students would take the greatest benefit from having the
financial means to complete their education.

Yale University last semester rightly decided to provide financial aid to
students who had become ineligible for federal grants and loans because of
drug offenses or convictions. Yet students who do not attend schools with
large endowments must similarly be encouraged to better their futures
through education.

Revisions to the Higher Education Act would not require a major overhaul.
Instead, the federal government must continue to fund financial aid while a
student completes rehabilitation, rather than take it away during treatment.
If a student fails to get the necessary help, then greater measures may be
warranted.

In this way, an incentive is provided for students to get the appropriate
help. Education is not a "reward" that should be frivolously given and taken
away as the federal government sees necessary. If the government wants to
punish or deter drug offenders, it should use another avenue. But preventing
the pursuit of a degree is the worst thing it can do.