[2006alum]

Being barred from obtaining an education and receiving an athletic scholarship are two different things.

Why? A state university subsidizes a student's education either way. Why is an athletic scholarship different from a merit scholarship? Should he not qualify for need-based financial aid? I'm not sure where one draws the line.

I would encourage you to read this very interesting story about a young man who was imprisoned for car-jacking at 16 and went on to graduate from Harvard, Yale Law School, write award-winning books of poetry, and raise two sons. Yet he still was initially denied admission to the Connecticut Bar because of his past crime, until the state bar eventually changed its position after a lengthy campaign by his friends and colleagues. Did Yale Law make a mistake admitting him? Does he not represent the university well? I'd say he represents everything that is best about the idea of equality of opportunity and of rewarding merit and hard work. Child sexual molestation is a different crime than car jacking, but that should be reflected in the punishment and the conditions of supervised release. It should not merit a life sentence to be prohibited from pursuing your passion and talent.

Brock Turner has the right to continue his life somewhere, and I hope he obtains a good education for his own benefit and for society's sake, but it would sicken me if Stanford chose to honor his athletic grant in aid and reincorporate him into a team that represents our university.

This is an apples to oranges comparison. The OSU pitcher had to apply to colleges with his conviction on his record. Brock Turner has since been expelled from Stanford. If he completes his sentence, shows remorse for his actions, and genuinely seems to have turned a corner, I don't see why he should be categorically barred from returning. I think your feelings are clouded by the fact that he does not seem to have shown remorse and continues to deny the crime. But that isn't the case for the OSU pitcher, and I don't think it's helpful to draw comparisons where the salient facts are radically different.

[2006alum]

Being barred from obtaining an education and receiving an athletic scholarship are two different things.

Why? A state university subsidizes a student's education either way. Why is an athletic scholarship different from a merit scholarship? Should he not qualify for need-based financial aid? I'm not sure where one draws the line.

I would encourage you to read this very interesting story about a young man who was imprisoned for car-jacking at 16 and went on to graduate from Harvard, Yale Law School, write award-winning books of poetry, and raise two sons. Yet he still was initially denied admission to the Connecticut Bar because of his past crime, until the state bar eventually changed its position after a lengthy campaign by his friends and colleagues. Did Yale Law make a mistake admitting him? Does he not represent the university well? I'd say he represents everything that is best about the idea of equality of opportunity and of rewarding merit and hard work. Child sexual molestation is a different crime than car jacking, but that should be reflected in the punishment and the conditions of supervised release. It should not merit a life sentence to be prohibited from pursuing your passion and talent.

Brock Turner has the right to continue his life somewhere, and I hope he obtains a good education for his own benefit and for society's sake, but it would sicken me if Stanford chose to honor his athletic grant in aid and reincorporate him into a team that represents our university.

This is an apples to oranges comparison. The OSU pitcher had to apply to colleges with his conviction on his record. Brock Turner has since been expelled from Stanford. If he completes his sentence, shows remorse for his actions, and genuinely seems to have turned a corner, I don't see why he should be categorically barred from returning. I think your feelings are clouded by the fact that he does not seem to have shown remorse and continues to deny the crime. But that isn't the case for the OSU pitcher, and I don't think it's helpful to draw comparisons where the salient facts are radically different.