Pubdate: Wed, 02 May 2001
Source: Oak Ridger (TN)
Copyright: 2001 The Oak Ridger
Contact:  http://www.oakridger.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/1146
Author: Clarence Page

WAR ON DRUGS MISFIRES AGAINST STUDENTS

WASHINGTON -- In the hit drug movie "Traffic," the drug czar played 
by Michael Douglas laments a shocking discovery: The war on drugs, he 
says, "is a war on our nation's most precious resource - our 
children."

At the time, I thought that line was a bit of an exaggeration, some 
purple prose from a director trying too hard to make a point. Now I'm 
beginning to wonder whether Douglas' line didn't go far enough.

"War on our children" sounds like a pretty good description of a 
three-year-old federal law that denies financial aid for a year or 
more to students convicted of drug crimes, no matter how minor the 
crime might have been.

Think about it: You can have a record for rape, murder, burglary or 
child molestation and it won't hurt your chances for a federal 
student grant or loan. But get caught lighting up a joint during a 
rock concert and you can kiss that tuition help goodbye for a year or 
more, depending on the severity of the offense.

Rep. Mark Souder calls it "accountability." He's the Indiana 
Republican who authored the anti-drug measure as a 1998 amendment to 
the Higher Education Act.

"The concept is simple," he told me in a telephone interview. "If you 
want taxpayer funds, accountability goes with it. Some states do it 
with driver's licenses. The federal government does it with public 
housing. I wanted to do it with student loans."

Unfortunately, what he also has done is to punish thousands of 
applicants twice for what many would call a "youthful indiscretion," 
to use a phrase made popular by embarrassed politicians.

The law exempts drug offenders who subsequently enrolled in a 
treatment program. But many applicants found that out too late, even 
if they could have afforded the treatment.

Now Souder, like Dr. Frankenstein, is deeply troubled by the 
unintended consequences of his idea. He only intended to penalize 
students for drug violations committed while they were students, not 
for their prior offenses.

"I am an evangelical Christian," he said. "I believe in forgiveness. 
I don't want to punish someone for an offense they committed long ago 
when they now are trying to improve their lives."

So how did this goof happen? Souder blames the Clinton 
administration's interpretation of his wording, but you also could 
blame his wording.

"My bill says aid will be denied to an individual 'student who has 
been convicted' of any offense under federal or state law," he said. 
"It says 'student,' not 'applicant.' Why the Clinton administration 
decided to punish applicants is a mystery to me."

Maybe. But, ah, what a difference a few words make. "Has been 
convicted" does not stipulate how far back the conviction is supposed 
to be. Sounds to me like the administration believed the words it 
read.

Wording also became a confusing problem in the administration's 
student aid application forms. As a result, the Clinton 
administration decided not to penalize those who failed to answer the 
question. About 279,000 applications who left it blank received aid.

Some 9,000 others were denied because they acknowledged having had 
drug convictions. I guess that's what they get for being candid 
during a drug war.

The Clinton administration made the wording more explicit for the 
2001-2002 school year. It reads, "Do not leave this question blank. 
Have you ever been convicted of possessing or selling illegal drugs?"

After consulting with legal counsel, Bush's Education Secretary Rod 
Paige has decided to treat a blank answer to that question like a 
"yes," spokesmen say.

So, while Souder blames the Clinton administration for making his 
bill more ruthless than he intended, the Bush administration has 
announced an even tougher policy.

Pause now to consider another one of the drug war's ironies. Remember 
how presidential candidate George W. Bush refused to tell reporters 
whether he ever used illegal drugs? His refusal to answer the 
question did not stop him from getting to the White House. It would 
have stopped him, under his administration's new policy, from getting 
a student loan.

By last week, with almost half of the expected 10 million 
applications turned in, about 32,000 people answered "yes" to the 
drug question, according to an Education Department spokesman. About 
half of those applications have been approved after applicants filled 
out an additional drug questionnaire, and most of the rest of the 
cases are under review.

Souder now is pushing to scale back his legislation's reach so it 
won't penalize students for prior convictions. Rep. Barney Frank, 
D-Mass., has a better idea. He is reintroducing a bill to repeal 
Souder's measure altogether.

Unfortunately, a similar try by Frank failed last year. It probably 
won't get much farther this year. Too many of Washington's 
politicians run like scared rabbits from the possibility of looking 
soft on drugs, even when the result would help some ex-offenders to 
earn a better life.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Josh Sutcliffe