DRUG POLICY MISSTEPS

Yale's Rebuke Of Unjust Federal Aid Restrictions Reflects Failures Of The
Ill-Conceived Legislation

This past week, Yale University announced that it would reimburse any
student stripped of federal financial aid following conviction for drug
possession. The "Drug Free Student Aid" provision of the Higher Education
Act, passed in 1998, prohibits federal assistance to students convicted of
any drug-related offense in an effort to deter drug use among teenagers and
young adults.

Yale's decision will effectively nullify the law for Elis by replacing lost
federal aid with an equivalent amount of university money.

Yale's new policy rejects the federal government's contention that
inhibiting individuals' access to education somehow constitutes just
punishment for drug-related offenses.

Rapists, murderers and other violent criminals, upon their acceptance to
any university, still receive full consideration for federal financial aid,
yet teenagers guilty of possessing a dime bag of marijuana are not. In its
effort to wage war on drugs, the government has lost its sense of
perspective on the relative severity of crimes and seems determined to
single out drug offenders for permanent punishment. While thieves may spend
time incarcerated, they are free to build a new and better life once
released. Drug offenders, on the other hand, may be prevented from
attending college and from achieving a higher level of education, stunting
their socio-economic mobility and prospects for a better future.
Legislation sponsored by Rep. Barney Frank '61-'62 (D-Mass.), which would
repeal this provision, is currently under consideration in the House of
Representatives.

Beyond unfairly punishing drug offenders, the federal law's flaws also
include a class bias. The majority of drug arrests in the United States
occur in low-income areas, where police enforcement is at its highest.
Although drug use is prevalent among members of all socio- economic
classes, law enforcement's focus on poorer areas creates a risk imbalance
between communities of different economic character. The law, by targeting
individuals convicted of drug offenses, is more likely to affect poor drug
users than rich ones. Furthermore, even when wealthier students are
convicted of drug offenses, the loss of financial aid is likely to present
a lesser burden.

Therefore, the law not only unfairly targets low-income communities, but
also punishes most severely individuals from those very communities.

Yale should be commended for its efforts to provide access to education for
otherwise-qualified individuals convicted of minor drug offenses. Education
is not an incentive to be dangled before teenagers in an effort to keep
them from experimenting with drugs; though it may act as a small deterrent
for some, the manifest injustice of the policy renders the means
unacceptable in achieving the ends.

It is vital to the future of every individual that education be widely
available to facilitate increased productivity, opportunity and living
standards for everyone.

The federal government blundered in 1998 and Yale, to its credit, is
working to set things right.

Harvard, as a finer institution than Yale, should lose no time in following
suit.