This past week, Yale University announced that it would reimburse any student stripped of federal financial aid following conviction for drug possession. The “Drug Free Student Aid” provision of the Higher Education Act, passed in 1998, prohibits federal assistance to students convicted of any drug-related offense in an effort to deter drug use among teenagers and young adults. Yale’s decision will effectively nullify the law for Elis by replacing lost federal aid with an equivalent amount of university money.

Yale’s new policy rejects the federal government’s contention that inhibiting individuals’ access to education somehow constitutes just punishment for drug-related offenses. Rapists, murderers and other violent criminals, upon their acceptance to any university, still receive full consideration for federal financial aid, yet teenagers guilty of possessing a dime bag of marijuana are not. In its effort to wage war on drugs, the government has lost its sense of perspective on the relative severity of crimes and seems determined to single out drug offenders for permanent punishment. While thieves may spend time incarcerated, they are free to build a new and better life once released. Drug offenders, on the other hand, may be prevented from attending college and from achieving a higher level of education, stunting their socio-economic mobility and prospects for a better future. Legislation sponsored by Rep. Barney Frank ’61-’62 (D-Mass.), which would repeal this provision, is currently under consideration in the House of Representatives.

Beyond unfairly punishing drug offenders, the federal law’s flaws also include a class bias. The majority of drug arrests in the United States occur in low-income areas, where police enforcement is at its highest. Although drug use is prevalent among members of all socio-economic classes, law enforcement’s focus on poorer areas creates a risk imbalance between communities of different economic character. The law, by targeting individuals convicted of drug offenses, is more likely to affect poor drug users than rich ones. Furthermore, even when wealthier students are convicted of drug offenses, the loss of financial aid is likely to present a lesser burden. Therefore, the law not only unfairly targets low-income communities, but also punishes most severely individuals from those very communities.

Yale should be commended for its efforts to provide access to education for otherwise-qualified individuals convicted of minor drug offenses. Education is not an incentive to be dangled before teenagers in an effort to keep them from experimenting with drugs; though it may act as a small deterrent for some, the manifest injustice of the policy renders the means unacceptable in achieving the ends.

It is vital to the future of every individual that education be widely available to facilitate increased productivity, opportunity and living standards for everyone. The federal government blundered in 1998 and Yale, to its credit, is working to set things right. Harvard, as a finer institution than Yale, should lose no time in following suit.