Pubdate: Tue, 01 May 2001
Source: St. Louis Post-Dispatch (MO)
Copyright: 2001 St. Louis Post-Dispatch
Contact:  http://home.post-dispatch.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/418
Author: Clarence Page
Related: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v01/n750/a01.html
Note: Clarence Page is a member of the Chicago Tribune editorial board.
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/hea.htm (Higher Education Act)

ONE MISTAKE SHOULD NOT BE FATAL TO A STUDENT'S FUTURE

WASHINGTON - In the hit 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 good description of a 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 at a rock concert and you can kiss 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 are 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 applicants who simply 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 further 
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: Terry Liittschwager