FINANCIAL AID EDITORIAL PROVIDES FEW HELPFUL FACTS

Is it the intent of the Editorial board to tell us how to think
without providing reasons or a logical argument? I thought that was
solely reserved for the government. Why did the editorial section on
March 30 ("Groups sue for financial aid for drug offenders") give
only opinions without providing so much as a single reason as to why
the writer was taking their stand? Just a pointer here, but if you're
going to try to persuade there needs to be an argument, reasoning or
logic some might call it. If I wanted poorly backed statements, weak
arguments and pleas to emotion I would listen to Rush Limbaugh.

"The student group and the ACLU, however, feel that this law is
unconstitutional. How, exactly, is this unconstitutional? How could
these people possibly consider this law unfair?"

How are we, the humble readers, to know the answers to these
questions when we haven't been told what part of the constitution the
ACLU is challenging? You didn't include the one piece of information
that is relevant to this editorial. Instead you included many parts
that weren't, namely: "This law is not infringing on anyone's rights,
and it's not unconstitutional." You must be a lawyer posing as a
student to be able to state this as fact. Lastly, I'll end with this:
"The Students for Sensible Drug Policy and the ACLU should withdraw
their lawsuit before they embarrass themselves more." I encourage you
to stop talking before you do this same. I'm calling you out Mr.
Writer, if Staff Writer is your real name, and not a pen name you
work under due to your cowardice.

Kyle Davis

Senior, College of Liberal Arts