Tuition costs rise too fast
This year, there is going to be an 8 percent increase in in-state tuition at Winthrop University. I do not understand the reasons behind this increase. Could it be to fund new, unnecessary buildings on this campus? Instead of building a new, state-of-the-art student center, we can have more parking spaces or at least a parking garage.
Sure, we have two gravel lots, but it's not a safe walk from those lots at night. There should be more lighting and the addition of several cameras in those areas as well. This past school year, someone broke the windows of five cars in one of the gravel lots.
There is talk about our library sinking and, as a result, a new one is needed. So why is the student center being built first instead of a library? Shouldn't a new library take first priority? There isn't a need for a new student center because our current one is in good condition. A new library would benefit our education, while a new student center is for fun.
When I entered college in 2006, tuition was about $16,000; this year's estimated cost is a little over $21,000. Because tuition has gone up so much, there are students who have had to leave Winthrop and go to technical schools or schools with lower standards of education.
McMaster's advice makes no sense
I am writing in response to the quote from state Attorney General Henry McMaster that, despite the U.S. Supreme Court ruling, "South Carolina prosecutors planning death penalty cases against child rapists should proceed." It is outrageous that the top law-enforcement official in the state basically advised state prosecutors to ignore the law of the land.
Prosecutors are not above the law nor are they free to ignore the law, and any advice to do so is both unethical and irresponsible. What if criminal defense attorneys advised their clients to go sell drugs because someday the drug laws might get changed. Would that be any different?
What sense does it make to pour all of the tax money and resources into prosecuting a case as a capital case when the Supreme Court already has defined it as a non-capital case? Is there not a better use for those tax dollars?