Harsh Prison Punishments Undeserved

To the editors:

I am entirely in agreement with The Crimson's conclusion in "Free Vali" that, even if he is found guilty, Vali D. Chandrasekaran '03 should not be made to serve anywhere near 20 years in prison (Editorial, Feb. 7). However, I was disappointed by the editors' failure to apply their thinking more broadly, if not more creatively.

I imagine most of us were shocked to learn that one of our peers could go to prison for 20 years for perpetrating an ultimately harmless--though badly botched--prank. But this surprise only reflects the extent to which we are sheltered from the harsh reality of our country's system of punishment. Many of us can use illegal drugs without fear of prison, we can drink while underage. We know that we, like our President, will be given second (and third and fourth) chances when we make mistakes, when our judgment errs.

In the editorial, The Crimson notes that, "While Chandrasekaran's actions may have demonstrated a lack of judgment, his behavior certainly does not warrant jail time. He is no hardened criminal and represents no further menace to society." I was sad to see the Crimson invoke the same tired "tough on crime" rhetoric that often surrounds debates about mandatory minimum sentences, three-strikes laws and the like. I agree: Vali is not a hardened criminal. He is not a menace to society.

But neither is Tonya Drake, 35, a mother of four. She had no criminal record or history of drug use before she made the unfortunate decision to mail a package for a friend in exchange for $44. The package's contents were unknown to her, but happened to contain 200 grams of crack cocaine. She was caught, threw herself on the mercy of the court much like Vali did, and is now serving 10 years in federal prison on a "possession with intent to distribute" conviction. Drake is also black and poor, and has probably never seen Harvard.

Gloria van Winkle, on the other hand, is white and a cocaine addict. She is also a mother, however, and she probably hasn't visited Harvard either. She has two drug possession convictions and was recently caught with $40 worth of cocaine. Under Kansas' three-strikes law, she is officially "out": now serving life in prison.

Are either of these women hardened criminals? Menaces to society? And their cases are hardly unique. More people are in prison in the United States for drug offenses--about 450,000--than are in prison for all crimes in England, France, Germany and Japan combined.

The Crimson makes the fine point that "no action occurs in a vacuum." Vali, the editors argue, is to be excused and shown leniency because he was performing "nothing more than a typical college prank." How much more leniency are we to expect, then, when the offending actions are taken out of the direst economic necessity? When the actions stem from long-standing, verifiable physical addiction? Was Vali unaware of the law he was breaking? Was he not in control over what he was doing?

Again, this is not to argue that Vali should be punished. Rather, I urge that we not see things solely from our own privileged, safe position in society. I would hope that Vali, after this "youthful indiscretion," will consider working with the newly founded Harvard Students for Prison Reform in an effort to make our system of justice more just and less punitive--encouraging increased judicial discretion, especially in cases of non-violent offenses, and working toward alternatives to incarceration that address the roots of crimes committed. Further, I would hope that Harvard students and other privileged Americans everywhere will reconsider our national response to crime. Putting people like Chandrasekaran, Drake or van Winkle behind bars for many years is neither an appropriate response nor an effective one. Our country has the highest rates of both incarceration and crime in the world.

The joke, much like Chandrasekaran's, appears to be on us.

Alex A. Guerrero '01

Feb. 8, 2001

The writer is the director of the Prisoner Education Program and a member of the Steering Committee for Harvard Students for Prison Reform.

Mansfield Right to Fight Grade Inflation

To the editors:

I object to your insouciant criticism of William B. Kenan, Jr. Professor of Government Harvey C. Mansfield's views on grading ("Harvey 'C-Plus' Mansfield?", Feb. 9). While you may think yourselves entitled to cast Professor Mansfield as woefully atavistic in his belief that it is a professor's job "to point out how little a student knows," The Crimson should show more respect toward the man who has spent half a century at Harvard and secured a reputation--among his students past and present--not merely as a tough grader, but also as one of the finest educators at this university.

The Crimson is interested, is it not, in fine education? Just last week the Editorial Board treated us to a host of editorials on how the deans might better serve the cause of liberal arts education at Harvard--including one presumptuously entitled "The Closing of the Harvard Mind," after the late Allan Bloom's outstanding critique of American universities. If the Crimson is as earnest about curriculum reform as it postures in these editorials, it will take lessons, not cheap rhetorical devices, from great educators such as Bloom and Mansfield. Belittling so casually the pedagogical views of such men does little more than illustrate further the point Mansfield makes with his new grading scheme: Harvard students can, despite their big talk and their impressive transcripts, be sadly ignorant men and women.

Bronwen C. McShea '02

Feb. 9, 2001