Pubdate: Thu, 26 Apr 2001
Source: Salon (US Web)
Copyright: 2001 Salon
Contact:  http://www.salon.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/381
Author: Arianna Huffington
Note: About the writer Arianna Huffington is a nationally syndicated 
columnist and author of eight books. Her latest, "How to Overthrow the 
Government," was published in 2000 by Regan Books (HarperCollins).

THE DRUG WAR GOES TO COLLEGE

What kind of vindictive social agenda could lead to a law that denies 
financial aid to a student convicted of smoking a joint but not one 
convicted of rape, murder, arson or armed robbery?

America's drug war insanity claimed fresh victims last week. The casualties 
were rightly front-page news -- a child and her mother murdered in the 
skies of Peru in the name of protecting our children from drugs. Receiving 
a lot less attention were the tens of thousands of young people wounded by 
the Bush administration's decision to strictly enforce a law that denies 
financial aid to college students convicted of possessing illegal drugs.

The result of a 1998 amendment to the Higher Education Act, the student 
loan ban was only sporadically enforced by the Clinton administration. Last 
year, some 300,000 students who skipped over a question about drug 
convictions on their financial aid applications still received their loans, 
while 9,114 students who answered "yes" were denied aid. Under Bush's new 
standard, the lack of a response will be treated as equivalent to "yes." As 
a result, it is expected that about 60,000 students will lose their loans, 
Pell grants and work-study programs this year.

Like so many of our misguided drug war policies, this one clearly 
discriminates against minorities and the poor. We already know how 
African-Americans are unfairly targeted by the criminal justice system -- 
making up only 13 percent of the country's drug users but 55 percent of 
those convicted of drug possession and 74 percent of those sent to jail on 
possession charges. Do we really want to transfer this racist bias from our 
courts to our colleges?

And why make poor kids pay for the same crime twice, while children of 
privilege are allowed their "youthful indiscretions" without fear of losing 
the chance for a college education?

Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., who in February introduced a bill to repeal the 
law, stresses its unjust nature. "These low-income students," he told 
me=82" are in effect being thrown out of school for doing what George W. 
Bush and Al Gore have done. Now, people might not be enamored with either 
Bush or Gore, but I don't think anybody would say that America was 
disserviced by them completing their college education."

Frank's amendment has been endorsed by more than 80 student government 
associations. In fact, this latest drug war offensive has had a galvanizing 
effect on campuses across America. Students for Sensible Drug Policy, a 
leading campus organizer against the drug provision, has received more than 
200 requests to establish new chapters in the past month alone.

In addition, a number of schools are establishing scholarship funds for 
students denied aid under the new guidelines. Among them is Hampshire 
College in Massachusetts, where Gregory Prince Jr. became the first 
university president to come out against the law. "Why would you want to 
exclude people from the educational stream," asks Prince, "when trying to 
keep them in the stream is the most important thing to do?"

Politicians from both parties who supported the punitive provision are 
having a hard time answering this question. The extent to which they are 
feeling the heat is evidenced by the verbal back flips now being performed 
by the law's sponsor, Rep. Mark Souder, R-Ind. He claims that the 
legislation was never intended to punish students with prior drug 
convictions as it currently does.

But didn't he read his own handiwork? Nowhere in the bill does it state 
that it applies only to convictions incurred while receiving federal aid. 
In fact, the language couldn't be clearer: "A student who has been 
convicted of any offense ... involving the possession or sale of a 
controlled substance shall not be eligible to receive any grant, loan, or 
work assistance." Maybe Souder needs to go back to school for a refresher 
class in English composition.

Or economics. He has argued that one of the primary purposes of his 
legislation is to "help those who abuse drugs receive treatment." But he 
fails to mention how this treatment is going to be paid for -- his bill 
doesn't giveth, it only taketh away.

There are currently 3 million people who are not able to get treatment. And 
someone who is not able to pay for school is probably someone who is not 
able to pay for rehab either. So add Logic 101 to Souder's courseload.

Here's his first take-home test: "Solve the following conundrum: What kind 
of twisted reasoning or vindictive social agenda could lead to a law that 
denies financial aid to a student convicted of smoking a joint but not one 
convicted of rape, murder, arson or armed robbery? Explain."

And after you explain, repeal.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom