This past Thursday, Stephen V. David and William A. Blankenship, two former members of the class of 1996 and Currier House residents, changed their plea from not guilty to guilty concerning charges of four counts of possession of controlled substances. Immediately following their plea decision, they were sentenced to two years of probation, and they will have to enter a drug evaluation and counseling program. We think the sentence was too light but are pleased that Blankenship and David were not sentenced to jail.

Blankenship and David were in possession of cocaine, LSD, marijuana and ecstasy. Under the law, Blankenship and David were not subject to any mandatory minimum sentences based on what substances they possessed. However, Blankenship and David were within 1,000 feet of the Peabody Elementary School, which under Chapter 94, section 32(C) of the Massachusetts General Law means they should be serving a mandatory minimum of two-and-a-half years, and it is expressly stipulated that "lack of knowledge of school boundaries shall not be a defense" for those convicted under this statute.

We are happy, however, that despite the technicalities of the law, Blankenship and David will not be serving any prison time. While they violated the letter of the law, they did not violate the spirit. The two former Currier residents were incidentally dealing in a school zone; their market was not comprised of grade school children; their market was the Harvard community.

It is widely acknowledged, though, that the dealers were running a heavily for-profit operation, and they were, as one Harvard Police officer called them, "major players." For this reason, we feel their sentence was too light, in that two years' probation is not enough and their fines should be greater than the $2,500 they will pay in court fees. We would have endorsed a harsher punishment as long as they were kept out of prison. We realize that had Blankenship and David been, for example, poor residents of the projects of Cambridge, their sentence may not have been as lenient, and they would perhaps have been given the mandatory minimum, but unless these hypothetical dealers had a prior conviction of drug dealing, we would not endorse their going to prison either. The Massachusetts law was designed to severely punish people dealing to children, which Blankenship and David were not doing.

One area where we cannot compromise, however, is their status at Harvard. We feel that the seriousness of their crime, and the degree to which their operation was carried out, definitely warrants their not graduating from the College, and we hope the administration sees it this way, too. Harvard must draw the line somewhere, and Blankenship and David have certainly crossed any line that could be drawn. We realize that the percentage of Harvard students that graduate is a very important number for the reputation of the University, but there could be no excuse in letting these criminals leave Harvard with a diploma. Their graduation would be a far greater blemish.