THE NEED TO SECURE MORE MONEY

After reading the Feb. 21 article "Officials debate extending aid"
and the accompanying editorial, it is necessary to address The
Diamondback's omission of several important issues. Without taking
any position on whether punishing drug offenders by denying them
financial aid is just, I would like to remind everyone that there is
no pot of money in Annapolis labeled "Drug Offenders' College Fund."
This money would have to come from the pockets of students with
financial needs the state is already unable to meet.

I would also like to take note of a policy The Diamondback referred
to as "nonsensical" - the idea of punishing a person beyond their
original sentence. Sex offenders raised the same argument to avoid
joining the sex offender registry. Their argument was rejected.
Realistically, sex offenders had more of a case because the law
requiring them to register was passed after they were convicted.
Students convicted of drug offenses had plenty of warning, as the law
has been around since 1998, and I doubt many students had drug
convictions by age 10. Furthermore, I'll let you in on another fact
The Diamondback omitted: The law now only applies to those who were
students at the time of their conviction, and for a first offense
they are only ineligible for aid for one year.

If state delegates and student activists truly want to improve access
to education, the way to do that is through gaining more money for
universities and student financial aid, not merely through taking
money from some needy students and giving it to other needy students.
And to The Diamondback - your omissions make me question your
supposed commitment to inform the student body. Regardless of whether
it is just to deny financial aid to drug offenders, we should have
all the facts before deciding.

Ken Coriale

Sophomore

Government and politics and history