In a move that could affect thousands of college applicants, the U.S. Department of Education moved last week to close a loophole that had allowed college applicants to leave blank a question about prior drug convictions.

Applicants must now respond to the question or forfeit federal aid.

Over 50 student governments and national groups-mostly civil liberties and minority organizations-have opposed the move as well as the government's continued practice of basing aid eligibility on drug offenses, but the Harvard student community seems largely placid over the issue.

"Personally, I was not aware of this," said Undergraduate Council Vice-President Sujean S, Lee `03. "No one has raised the issue at any of our meetings."

Harvard asks a similar question on its financial aid application, but evaluates respondents on a case-by-case basis and does not base its decisions on federal guidelines, according to Director of Financial Aid Sally C. Donahue.

A Harvard student could therefore continue to receive institutional aid even if federal aid were withdrawn.

"We have [supplemented rescinded federal aid] in certain cases where we have decided that federal guidelines are not the guidelines we should follow," Donahue said. "[But} that's mostly in income-driven situations."

No such situation has arisen in a drug-related case at Harvard, she said.

The Drug-Free Student Loans Act, a provision of the Higher Education Act of 1998, mandates that applicants and students convicted of drug offenses forfeit eligibility for federal financial aid. The provision stipulates that first-time drug offenders are ineligible for one year, second-time offenders for two years and third-time offenders indefinitely.

Students can recover their aid early upon successfully completing a recognized treatment program.

The political issue has been heated at the national level. Rep. Barney Frank `61 (D-Mass.) has introduced a bill to Congress aimed at repealing the provision, which currently has 29 co-sponsors.

Opposition to the provision also comes from the single-issue Coalition for Higher Education Act Reform (CHEAR). CHEAR includes the American Civil Liberties Union and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People-neither of which have Harvard College chapters-and over 30 other national groups.

Concerns focus on what critics see as unfair targeting of nonviolent offenders as well as the practice's potential for racial discrimination.

"It really is a double whammy, especially on the African-American community," said Chris Evans, campus coordinator for the Drug Reform Coalition, which is a member of CHEAR.

Gary Orfield, a professor of education and social policy at the Graduate School of Education (GSE) and the Kennedy School of Government, is another critic of the law.

"I think it's ill-advised, given the records of so many young people and older people, particularly the president of the United States himself," Orfield said.

GSE Professor Patricia A. Graham agreed, saying that the policy could be counterproductive.

"It's not a good thing to get [a drug conviction]; on the other hand, it shouldn't affect the rest of your life if you're trying to turn yourself around," Graham said.

According to Donahue. CHEAR has not made its presence felt in Harvard's Office of Admissions and Financial Aid.

"I have not heard from those groups directly-I do know that nationally this has been a concern," she said.

Last week's decision came after over 100,000 students left the question blanks last year, which the Education Department attributed to confusing wording.

Of the 12,000 reports Harvard's financial aid office has received from the federal government this year, only two had left the question blank, Donahue said.