FINANCIAL AID UNFAIRLY RESTRICTED BY DRUG LAW

Decrying government policy in the hope of repeal is common. Less so
is taking the initiative to work outside the system, and detractors
of a federal student aid guideline are doing just that.

The law in question is designed to keep federal aid dollars out of
the hands of college students who have criminal drug records. On the
federal student aid application, fund-seekers are asked if they've
ever been convicted of possessing or selling illegal drugs.

For those answering "yes," one possession coviction renders students
unable to receive aid for a year after conviction. For a second
possession or first drug-sale conviction, the funding ineligibility
is two years. The aid ban is indefinite for more convictions, unless
applicants take part in drug rehab.

Some critics of the drug law have opted for opposition in the form of cash.

Last week, a network of groups pushing for drug law reform launched a
scholarship program for students turned down because of their
criminal drug records. The John W. Perry Fund scholarships are named
for a New York cop who died in the World Trade Center attacks last
fall. Perry was a staunch critic of the war on drugs.

Hampshire College in Amherst, Mass., and Pennsylvania's Swarthmore
College also aren't waiting for the legislative wheels to spin. Both
colleges will provide loan or grant money to students burned by the
drug law.

U.S. Rep. Mark Souder, currently running for the GOP nomination for
Indiana's new 3rd District, authored the law but now claims it's been
administered incorrectly. He says he meant the ban to target only
those students getting financial aid when convicted.

Souder recently proposed amending the law to clarify matters. That's
good, because the measure is flawed. To a large degree, it amounts to
offenders being punished again after serving their debt to society.
And while some crimes yield lingering penalties - felons, for
example, can't have guns even after they've done their jail time - to
lump non- violent drug offenses with them is foolish.

The law's impacts are financial status-specific: Less-wealthy
students need financial aid, and rich students don't. In other words,
affluent pupils with drug-tarnished records can still wander the
campus of their choosing. Perhaps to score more dope.

Higher education is a window of opportunity, one the existing drug
law unfairly shuts. The current provisions need to be changed or
thrown out altogether. Until that happens, hats off to the people who
didn't want to wait.