BOARD DECIDES TO COVER AID FOR DRUG OFFENDERS

The Board of Managers has approved a policy mandating that the college
replace financial aid the federal government denies to students with drug
convictions beginning next year. "Students who have been convicted of drug
offenses are not eligible to receive federal student aid" because of a law
passed in 1998 that will go into effect for the next academic year,
Director of Financial Aid Laura Talbot said.

Replacing money denied to students with drug convictions "is consistent
with stands we have taken in the past," President Al Bloom said.

For example, "in 1983, the college joined with 10 other schools to state
publicly that we thought that access to education should not be linked with
the Selective Service requirement," Talbot said.

"I believe that the decision with respect to registration for the draft had
to do with protecting students' rights to acts of conscience," Maurice
Eldridge '61, vice president for college and community relations, said.
However, he added, "it is bad policy to use federal funds intended to
expand access to higher education as a means of enforcing drug laws."

"It was our sense that our current policy would entail that we meet that
obligation" to make sure that any student accepted by Swarthmore would be
able to enroll here, Bloom said, explaining the rationale behind making up
aid lost to drug offenders.

"There were absolutely no objections at all" to making such replacements at
the Board of Managers' meeting, the board's chair, Larry Shane '56, said.
"We should continue our policy of providing for financial need to the
extent that it's needed."

The decision to replace this aid prompted a change in admissions policy. A
question on the application reads, "Have you been suspended or dismissed
from any school? (If so, please explain fully on a separate sheet)." Now
the college "will be asking about criminal record" on the application
according to Bloom.

The wording of the new question is still up in the air. It may be similar
to Pomona's question, "Have you ever been suspended, dismissed or subjected
to any school-related or legal disciplinary action?" Jim Bock '90, dean of
admissions and financial aid, said he still needs to meet with the
college's lawyer to determine the exact wording of the new question.

In fact, Bock said, there is a lot of information the college does not
request from applicants. He cited a case in which a convicted murderer
enrolled at Princeton and was later kicked out for lying about his grades.
A more refined question about criminal records on Swarthmore's application
might keep a similar situation from occurring at here.

And that's the goal of such a question. Knowing about applicants' criminal
records may reveal something about their character. Bock thinks that
character is important in building the Swarthmore community. The question
is what a new question would reveal about students' characters and exactly
what the question would ask.

Matt Rubin, Student Council co-president, said he had "reservations" about
asking admissions applicants about their criminal records. The new question
will reveal information to admissions counselors that they never had access
to before, and a group of Student Council members will meet with Bock next
week to discuss the issue that will arise from this new information at length.

Although the decision represents a official stance from the college about
educational opportunity, the amount of actual aid involved is expected to
be small.

"The financial aid budget is likely adequate to meet our needs," Eldridge
said, although he noted that "we have no experience to measure how much
money might be needed" to replace the federal aid of students with drug
convictions. Preliminary numbers from a worksheet written by Laura Talbot
indicate that the total amount of aid replaced could range up to $12,700.
Bloom confirmed that Swarthmore will replace federal grants and loans with
Swarthmore grants and loans of the same amounts.

"This year, our average aid award is $24,274," Talbot said in an e-mail.
"$5,354 is a combination of federal, state and community
scholarships/grants, federal and college loan funds, and federal or college
compensation for students' campus jobs."

When Swarthmore decided to replace aid that students had lost because they
did not register for Selective Service, there were "a handful of schools"
who acted in the same way, Talbot wrote. "Earlham, Haverford and a few
others replaced forfeited federal funds but only with their own loan
funds," she wrote. Many of the schools that moved in this direction were
historically Quaker institutions.

There may be a few other schools that are replacing aid the federal
government denied students because of drug convictions, according to Darrel
Rogers, national outreach coordinator of Students for a Sensible Drug Policy.

Some schools, including Yale, are debating whether to replace this aid, but
neither Bloom, Bock nor Eldridge could confirm that any other schools had
already decided to replace this federal aid. Bock suggested Swarthmore may
have addressed the issue early, but a number of colleges will have to deal
with it this spring. Eldridge wrote that other schools "with need-blind
admissions practices will continue their practices."

"Students would have to fill in that gap on their own," Bruce Poch, vice
president and dean of admissions for Pomona, said of the policy Pomona
would likely adopt it if this issue were raised there. Each private college
will have the opportunity to make its own decisions about replacing this aid.

"There is a bit of a difference between the public and the private
universities," Rogers said. While private colleges can sometimes replace
federal aid, public colleges may face a "backlash" if they try to replace
aid denied by the federal government.

"We saw no legal liability which would prevent the college from continuing
its policy" by replacing aid the government denies because of drug
convictions, Bloom said.