Slate's Bizbox
Science: The state of the universe.

Just Check No?A lie college students might want to tell.

By Ryan Grim
Posted Thursday, April 13, 2006, at 7:19 AM ET

In 1998, Rep. Mark Souder, R-Ind., an advocate of stringent drug laws, slipped into a House bill an amendment denying federal financial aid for college to anyone who had been convicted of either selling or possessing drugs. No congressional committee voted on the amendment. But it passed as part of the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, first enacted in 1965 to create federal financial aid for college students.

In 2004, the group Students for Sensible Drug Policy asked the federal government to give it a state-by-state breakdown of the number of students denied aid as a result of Souder's amendment. The Department of Education demanded $4,124.19 for the information. SSDP asked for a fee waiver, arguing that releasing the information was in the public's interest and that the group is a cash-strapped nonprofit. The agency denied SSDP's request, arguing that releasing the data could lead to drug legalization. Public Citizen backed SSDP in court. The New York Times editorialized on its behalf. The federal government blinked. On Wednesday, the Department of Education gave SSDP the state-by-state numbers. Here they are.

If this law betters the lives of young people—Souder calls it a way to reduce youth drug use by reducing demand—then no state has done better than Souder's own Indiana. As of August 2005, nearly 9,000 Indianan students—one in 200—have been denied aid since the law passed. That's the highest proportion of students affected in any state by a wide margin. (Click here to see where your state ranks.) A week ago, when the Department of Education released preliminary data, I started calling Martin Green, Souder's spokesman, for a comment on Indiana's stellar showing. He has not returned my calls.

There's another funny thing about the Department of Education's numbers: They don't show the number of college applicants punished for drug convictions. They show the number punished for owning up to drug convictions. On their financial-aid applications, students are asked to check a box if they've been convicted of selling or possessing drugs. But the department has no way to verify students' answers. Officials can cross-check the answers with federal arrest records, but they make up a very small percentage of all drug convictions.

So far, about 190,000 students across the country (and abroad) have told the truth and been denied financial aid. It's impossible to know how many lied and headed off to college, federal aid in hand. Nearly 300,000 student-aid applicants, however, simply ignored the question in 2000-2001, the first school year in which it was asked. After internal debate, the Clinton administration decided to give all these students a pass. (A fitting verdict, perhaps, given Clinton's own equivocal response to questions about drug use.)

The Bush administration reversed this "ask, but don't tell" policy. Beginning in 2001, applicants who have refused to say whether they've been convicted of a drug crime are presumed guilty and bounced from the aid pool. That year, the number of students denied aid quintupled.

When Souder's amendment came up for reconsideration last year, its opponents couldn't muster the votes to get rid of it. They settled for a change that denies federal aid only to students caught getting high while in college. That bill was signed by President Bush as part of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005. But its future is hazy; it's tied up in court because the House and Senate versions differed slightly. Whatever its fate, the government still won't be able to verify much about a student's drug record. Which means they'll catch fibbing students only if they've had the unusual misfortune of being convicted of a federal crime. A word to the wise, and the not-so-wise: You may want to just check "no."

Print This ArticlePRINTDiscuss this in The FrayDISCUSSEmail to a FriendE-MAIL
Share on FacebookPost to MySpace!Share with MixxDigg ThisShare with RedditShare with del.icio.usShare with FurlShare with Ma.gnolia.comShare with SphereShare with Stumble Upon
Ryan Grim writes for The Politico.
Join the Fray: our reader discussion forum
What did you think of this article?
POST A MESSAGE | READ MESSAGES

[T]he problem with the advice given by this column to check "no" on the application even if you have been convicted of a drug offense: it would be a lie to do so. Lying on the application is another offense, one that would lead not only to loss of financial aid, but also to dismissal from the U.

I mean, why not add additional false information about how you worked for years to help feed the homeless and as a passer-by during a shoot-out, you saved the life of a young girl who later on worked with you to discover the cure for cancer? Where will the lying end?

--gshenaut

(To reply, click here.)

What a clever idea--take kids who were involved with drugs in high school, but somehow survived the crippling effects and maintained their desire to go to college, and deny them their only chance at a better future. Once they realize they can't afford college, how does Souder think they're going to make money?

The new policy, kicking students off federal aid if they're caught using drugs during college, makes more sense. I suppose it's reasonable to expect that students depending on taxpayer money to fund their college education spend their time studying instead of toking up.

--Bulldoggie

(To reply, click here.)

Souder is a real champ. What great elected representative. Fighting hard to make sure that his constituents' children won't get the chance to go to college and improve their lives. Your tax dollars at work!

--afroblanco

(To reply, click here.)

Are high schoolers really going to say, "No thanks, I can't have that joint because I need federal aid for college?" Who is it supposed to help to endlessly persecute anyone found with drugs? It is perverse how harsh we are on drug possession, not selling or making the stuff, just possession. It's perverse given that the whole motivation of drug prohibition is to protect people from the hazards of drugs.

Let's get that straight: to protect you from the hazards of drugs, the government will endlessly persecute anyone found with them. Thanks, but I can live without that kind of 'protection'.

If these drugs are so dangerous, isn't that danger deterrent enough? If the danger of drugs, which is so grave that we have banned them utterly, is not itself a deterrent, how will adding the denial of student aid make any difference? It seems self-evident that either 1) drugs aren't as dangerous as we make them out to be, or 2) the people taking drugs are oblivious to risk. So how is it helping these people to imprison them and then make it hard for them to get an education? Is the rest of the country better off now that 200,000 students have been denied federal aid [1]? Do we want drug use to be a ticket into a permanent underclass status? That seems like a smart plan.


--kolmogorov

(To reply, click here.)

(4/14)

Washington Post
The Washington Post
OPINIONS
Over the Line
Harold Ford Jr. | I know what it's like to be smeared by your opponent.
: The Positive in Negative Ads
PLUS » Milbank: The President's Lullaby