Questions on domestic partner benefits
Kevin Rector (Feb. 14, “Seeking mutual benefits”) should be ashamed of himself for attempting to mislead us with his slick language and his highly atypical example of a supposed 25-year homosexual relationship.
In this article on a lesbian faculty member’s struggle to motivate the incorporation of domestic partner benefits at the university, Rector waxes vague in his distinctions between couples and whether they are married. For me, reading this was like having just walked across a pond on thin ice and then looking back to see whether I had fallen in.
In addition to using statements that are technically inaccurate, Rector uses the misfortunes (health problems and costly insurance) of just two individuals (the faculty member and her lesbian partner) into evidence of some vast injustice.
Certainly, if promoting domestic partner benefits necessitates such manipulative writing, the very concept must lack integrity.
Finally, it is a great irony that the subject of the article, a professor of family studies, shows such a warped understanding of what constitutes a family. Namely, two women and three dogs. In an age when image is (almost) everything, I believe this personal depiction does little to promote an image of a sensible university.
Bill NorwoodTechnicianPhysics department
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 CorialeSophomoreGovernment and politics and history
Air your views
The Diamondback welcomes your comments. Address your letters or guest columns to the Opinion Desk at opinion@dbk.umd.edu. All letters and guest columns must be signed. Include your full name, year, major and day- and night-time phone numbers. Please limit letters to 300 words. Please limit guest columns to between 600 and 800 words.
Submission of a letter or guest column constitutes an exclusive, worldwide, transferable license to The Diamondback of the copyright in the material in any media. The Diamondback retains the right to edit submissions for content and length.
Policy: The signed letters, columns and cartoon represent only the opinions of the authors. The staff editorial represents the opinion of The Diamondback’s editorial board and is the responsibility of the editor in chief.
